To re-evaluate the face and content validity of the Nursing Activity Score currently adopted in evaluating activities that best describe workloads in intensive care units and their weight in describing average nursing time consumption. The Nursing Activity Score calculates the amount of nursing time that each patient will require over the next 24 hours. It has been widely used around the world since its first validation in 2003. However, no re-evaluation of its validity with regard to the advancements achieved in intensive care units nursing care has been documented to date. A research project was undertaken from 2012 to 2015, aimed at critically evaluating and validating this tool in the current context of Italian intensive care units nursing care. The 23 items were translated forward and backward into the Italian language, then a panel of 10 experts in critical care evaluated the face validity. Content validity was evaluated through focus groups involving seven critical care expert registered nurses. The Nursing Activity Score instrument has been considered as not fully adequate to measure current intensive care units nursing activities and their weightings have been considered not fully adequate to score average nursing time consumption. From the content validity process, lack of adequacy has emerged with respect to the concept of nursing care underpinning the tool, the interventions included, its capability to predict the nursing resources needed, advancements achieved in intensive care units nurses' roles and competences, and the contextual factors that may influence consumption of nursing time. Development of the Nursing Activity Score tool both conceptually and in its structure, in view of the innovations that have occurred in the context of intensive care units, is necessary to continue to have a common tool to help clinicians and managers to capture accurately and compare nursing care required by patients in critical care settings. There is a need to revise the Nursing Activity Score tool, enabling its use in estimating nursing workloads in current Italian intensive care units practice. A taskforce of clinical nurses and nursing managers, capable of protecting the valuable original Nursing Activity Score project and to advance its further development is recommended.

Background: There is currently a lack of evidence for the comparative effectiveness of Andexanet alpha and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in anticoagulation reversal of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The primary aim of our systematic review was to verify which drug is more effective in reducing short-term all-cause mortality. The secondary aim was to determine which of the two reverting strategies is less affected by thromboembolic events. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Results: Twenty-two studies were analysed in the systematic review and quantitative synthesis. In all-cause short-term mortality, Andexanet alpha showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.71(95% CI 0.37–1.34) in RCTs and PSMs, compared to 4F-PCC (I² = 81%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 0.84 (95% CI 0.69–1.01) for the common effects model and 0.82 (95% CI 0.63–1.07) for the random effects model (I² = 34.2%). Regarding the incidence of thromboembolic events, for RCTs and PSMs, the common and the random effects model exhibited a RR of 1.74 (95% CI 1.09–2.77), and 1.71 (95% CI 1.01–2.89), respectively, for Andexanet alpha compared to 4F-PCC (I² = 0%). Considering the retrospective studies, the pooled RR resulted in 1.21 (95% CI 0.87–1.69) for the common effects model and 1.18 (95% CI 0.86–1.62) for the random effects model (I² = 0%). Conclusion: Considering a large group of both retrospective and controlled studies, Andexanet alpha did not show a statistically significant advantage over 4F-PCC in terms of mortality. In the analysis of the controlled studies alone, Andexanet alpha is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events. Clinical trial registration: PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, 2024, CRD42024548768.

Renal and genitourinary ultrasound are fundamental resources employed by emergency and critical care healthcare providers to make prompt diagnoses and perform ultrasound-guided procedures. At the bedside, ultrasound can aid in the diagnosis of relevant pathologies, such as post-renal obstruction or kidney stones, and life-threatening conditions such as aortic dissection or hemoperitoneum. A narrative overview was performed, providing an updated review of renal and genitourinary ultrasound for emergency and critical care healthcare providers, emphasizing its advantages and the latest advances in the field. A thorough summary that can be utilized as a guide for emergency and critical care healthcare providers is presented. The daily hemodynamic management of critically ill patients involves the implementation of new protocols, such as VexUS or the evaluation of the renal resistance index. The role of ultrasound in managing acute nephropathy and genitourinary issues is increasingly crucial given its bedside availability, thus this imaging modality not only facilitates the initiation of therapeutic interventions but also provides swift prognostic insights that are vital to provide tailored patient care. As further advances in ultrasound will arise, it is important for healthcare providers to foster the use of these technologies capable of improving patient outcomes.