There is a lack of consistent, evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with fever after brain injury. The aim was to update previously published consensus recommendations on targeted temperature management after intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke in patients who require admission to critical care. A modified Delphi consensus, the Neuroprotective Therapy Consensus Review (NTCR), included 19 international neuro-intensive care experts with a subspecialty interest in the acute management of intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke. An online, anonymised survey was completed ahead of the meeting before the group came together to consolidate consensus and finalise recommendations on targeted temperature management. A threshold of ≥80% for consensus was set for all statements. Recommendations were formulated based on existing evidence, literature review, and consensus. After intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke in patients who require critical care admission, core temperature should ideally be monitored continuously and maintained between 36.0°C and 37.5°C using automated feedback-controlled devices, where possible. Targeted temperature management should be commenced within 1 h of first fever identification with appropriate diagnosis and treatment of infection, maintained for as long as the brain remains at risk of secondary injury, and rewarming should be controlled. Shivering should be monitored and managed to limit risk of secondary injury. Following a single protocol for targeted temperature management across intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke is desirable. Based on a modified Delphi expert consensus process, these guidelines aim to improve the quality of targeted temperature management for patients after intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke in critical care, highlighting the need for further research to improve clinical guidelines in this setting.

Objectives Concern about trainee work-related well-being has been raised in recent years and is the subject of several reviews, reports and research studies. This study aimed to understand the experiences of trainees working in a large intensive care unit during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic from an educational and operational perspective in order to highlight what worked and what could be improved. Design A qualitative study using peer-to-peer semistructured interviews, developed using appreciative inquiry methodology, was conducted during July 2020. Responses were analysed using a thematic analysis technique. Setting A large, tertiary intensive care unit in the UK. Participants All trainees in anaesthesia and intensive care working on the intensive care unit during the first surge were invited to participate. Results Forty interviews were conducted and four over-arching themes were identified. These were: feeling safe and supported; physical demands; the emotional burden of caring; and a sense of fulfilment, value and personal development. Positive aspects of the organisational response to the pandemic included communication, personal protective equipment supply, team working and well-being support. Suggestions for improvement focused on rest facilities, rota patterns and hierarchies, creating opportunities for reflection and ensuring continued educational and training opportunities despite operational demands. Conclusions Trainees described opportunities for learning and fulfilment, as well as challenges, in working through a pandemic. Trainees described their needs and how well these were met during the pandemic. Ideas for improvement most frequently related to basic needs including safety and fatigue, but suggestions also related to supporting learning and development. The appreciative inquiry methodology of the project facilitated effective reflection on positive aspects of trainee experiences.

Background: Although most health care is high quality, many patients and members of staff can recall episodes of a lack of empathy, respect or effective communication from health-care staff. In extreme form, this contributes to high-profile organisational failures. Reflective learning is a universally promoted technique for stimulating insight, constructive self-appraisal and empathy; however, its efficacy tends to be assumed rather than proven. The Patient Experience And Reflective Learning (PEARL) project has used patient and staff experience to co-design a novel reflective learning framework that is based on theories of behaviour and learning. Objective: To create a toolkit to help health-care staff obtain meaningful feedback to stimulate effective reflective learning that will promote optimal patient-, family- and colleague-focused behaviours. Design: A 3-year developmental mixed-methods study with four interlinked workstreams and 12 facilitated co-design meetings. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour framework was used to describe factors influencing the behaviour of reflection. Setting: This took place at five acute medical units and three intensive care units in three urban acute hospital trusts in England. Participants: Patients and relatives, medical and nursing staff, managers and researchers took part. Data sources: Two anonymous surveys, one for patients and one for staff, were developed from existing UK-validated instruments, administered locally and analysed centrally. Ethnographers undertook interviews and observed clinical care and reflective learning activities in the workplace, as well as in the co-design meetings, and fed back their observations in plenary workshops. Main outcome measures: Preliminary instruments were rated by participants for effectiveness and feasibility to derive a final set of tools. These are presented in an attractively designed toolbox with multiple sections, including the theoretical background of reflection, mini guides for obtaining meaningful feedback and for reflecting effectively, guides for reflecting ‘in-action’ during daily activities, and a set of resources. Results: Local project teams (physicians, nurses, patients, relatives and managers) chaired by a non-executive director found the quarterly reports of feedback from the patient and staff surveys insightful and impactful. Patient satisfaction with care was higher for intensive care units than for acute medical units, which reflects contextual differences, but in both settings quality of communication was the main driver of satisfaction. Ethnographers identified many additional forms of experiential feedback. Those that generated an emotional response were particularly effective as a stimulus for reflection. These sources of data were used to supplement individual participant experiences in the nine local co-design meetings and four workshops to identify barriers to and facilitators of effective reflection, focusing on capability, opportunity and motivation. A logic model was developed combining the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour framework for reflection and theories of learning to link patient and staff experience to changes in downstream behaviours. Participants proposed practical tools and activities to enhance reflection ‘in-action’ and ‘on-action’. These tools were developed iteratively by the local and central project teams. Limitations: Paper-based surveys were burdensome to administer and analyse. Conclusions: Patients and health-care staff collaborated to produce a novel reflective learning toolkit. Future work: The toolkit requires evaluating in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patients with poor-grade subarachnoid bleed (World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies grades 4–5) often improve their neurocognitive function months after their ictus. However, it is essential to explore the timing of intervention and its impact on long-term outcome. We compared the long-term outcomes between immediate management within 24 h and delayed management after 24 h in patients following poor-grade subarachnoid bleed. This was a retrospective population-based study, including patients with poor-grade subarachnoid bleed who received definitive management between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016 in a large tertiary neurocritical care unit. The primary outcome was adjusted odds ratio of favourable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale 4–5) for survivors at 12 months following discharge, as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale. The secondary outcomes included adjusted odds ratio of a favourable outcome at discharge, 3 months and 6 months following discharge and survival rate at 28 days, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months following haemorrhage. A total of 111 patients were included in this study: 53 (48%) received immediate management and 58 (52%) received delayed management. The mean time delay from referral to intervention was 14.9 ± 5.8 h in immediate management patients, compared to 79.6 ± 106.1 h in delayed management patients. At 12 months following discharge, the adjusted odds ratio for favourable outcome in immediate management versus delayed management patients was 0.96 (confidence interval (CI) = 0.17, 5.39; p = 0.961). At hospital discharge, 3 months and 6 months, the adjusted odds ratio for favourable outcome was 3.85 (CI = 1.38, 10.73; p = 0.010), 1.04 (CI = 0.22, 5.00; p = 0.956) and 0.98 (CI = 0.21, 4.58; p = 0.982), respectively. There were no differences in survival rate between the groups at 28 days, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months (71.7% in immediate management group vs. 82.8% in delayed management group at 12 months, p = 0.163). Immediate management and delayed management after poor-grade subarachnoid bleed are associated with similar morbidity and mortality at 12 months. Therefore, delaying intervention in poor-grade patients may be a reasonable approach, especially if time is needed to plan the procedure or stabilise the patient adequately.