Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is common in critically ill patients and associated with poor outcomes. There is a lack of standardised methods for daily monitoring of GI function. COSMOGI aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for daily monitoring of GI function to improve consistency and comparability in future studies in critically ill patients. A modified Delphi consensus process engaging healthcare providers, clinical researchers, and patient representatives was performed. A systematic review identified existing parameters to monitor GI function, informing the development of potential outcomes. In Stage 1, participants rated outcomes (i.e., variables used for daily monitoring). In Stage 2, they refined and agreed on the definitions for the selected outcomes. The COS was ratified through consensus meetings. 368 individuals registered for the Delphi process. 285 participants (77.4%) completed Stage 1, and 181 participants (63.5%) completed Stage 2. From 77 potential outcomes, 13 essential outcomes for daily monitoring of GI function in studies, each with an agreed-upon definition, were established: abdominal distension, bowel dilatation, intra-abdominal pressure, abdominal pain, stool passage, vomiting, GI bleeding (upper and lower), use of parenteral nutrition due to intolerance of enteral nutrition, prokinetics, postpyloric feeding due to gastroparesis, lower GI paralysis, gastroparesis, intolerance to enteral nutrition. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, COSMOGI established a COS for monitoring GI function in critically ill patients in research. This COS and definitions provide a framework to guide future research, enabling comparability across studies and allowing for future definitions of GI dysfunction. Trial registration: This project was registered at ( www.comet-initiative.org ) on 27.03.2023 (number 2609) and was an ESICM-endorsed research project.

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers’ interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients’ safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

To assess physicians’ knowledge and practices for obtaining patients’ informed consent to medical procedures. An anonymous and voluntary survey of knowledge and practices for obtaining informed consent was conducted among 470 physicians (63% response rate) working in 6 hospitals: 93 specialists in anesthesiology, 166 in internal medicine, and 211 in surgery. Only 54% physicians were acquainted with the fact that the procedure for obtaining consent was regulated by the law. Internists and surgeons were better informed than anesthesiologists (P = 0.024). More than a half of respondents (66%) were familiar with the fact that a law on patient rights was passed in Croatia; there were no differences among different specialties (P = 0.638). Only 38% of the physicians were fully informed about the procedure of obtaining consent. Internists and surgeons provided detailed information to the patient in 33% of the cases and anesthesiologists in 16% of the cases (P < 0.050). Internists reported spending more time on informing the patient than anesthesiologists and surgeons (P < 0.001). There were no differences in knowledge and practices for obtaining informed consent between physicians working in university and those working in community hospitals (P ≥ 0.05 for all questions). Physicians in Croatia have no formal education on informed consent and implement the informed consent process in a rather formal manner, regardless of the type of hospital or medical specialty. Systemic approach at education and training at the national level is needed to improve the informed consent process.