Background: Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjectives: We conducted a pilot quality improvement (QI) project with the aim of improving accessibility of palliative care to critically ill neurosurgical patients.
Methods: The QI project was conducted in the neurosurgical intensive care unit (NS-ICU). Prior to the QI project, referral rates to palliative care were low.
Introduction: A study was conducted to describe the sedation practices of intensive care units (ICUs) in Singapore in terms of drug use, sedation depth and the incidence of delirium in both early (< 48 hours) and late (> 48 hours) periods of ICU admission.
Methods: A prospective multicentre cohort study was conducted on patients who were expected to be sedated and ventilated for over 24 hours in seven ICUs (surgical ICU, n = 4; medical ICU, n = 3) of four major public hospitals in Singapore. Patients were followed up to 28 days or until ICU discharge, with four-hourly sedation monitoring and daily delirium assessment by trained nurses.
Objectives: In the absence of a universal definition of light or deep sedation, the level of sedation that conveys favorable outcomes is unknown. We quantified the relationship between escalating intensity of sedation in the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation and 180-day survival, time to extubation, and delirium.
Design: Harmonized data from prospective multicenter international longitudinal cohort studies SETTING:: Diverse mix of ICUs.
Introduction: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Patients at risk of OSA as determined by pre-anaesthesia screening based on the American Society of Anesthesiologists checklist were divided into 2 groups for comparison: (i) those who proceeded to elective surgery under a risk management protocol without undergoing formal polysomnography preoperatively and; (ii) those who underwent polysomnography and any subsequent OSA treatment as required before elective surgery. We hypothesised that it is clinically safe and acceptable for patients identified on screening as OSA at-risk to proceed for elective surgery without delay for polysomnography, with no increase in postoperative complications if managed on a perioperative risk reduction protocol.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF