Tamas Szakmany

Background Despite increasing evidence of the potential inaccuracy and unwarranted practice of regular GRV measurement in critically in adults, this practice persists within the United Kingdom. Aim To explore adult intensive care nurses' decision‐making around the practice of GRV measurement to guide enteral feeding. Methods A cross‐sectional 16 item electronic survey in four adult intensive care units (ICUs) in England and Wales. Results Two hundred and seventy‐three responses were obtained across four ICUs with acceptable response rates for most [ Unit 1 74 /127 = 58.2%; Unit 2 87/129 = 67.4%; Unit 3 77/120 = 64.1%; Unit 4 35/168 = 20.8%]. Most (243/273 (89%) reported measuring GRV 4–6 hourly, with most (223/273 82%) reporting that the main reason was to assess feed tolerance or intolerance and 37/273 (13.5%) saying their unit protocol required it. In terms of factors affecting decision‐making, volume obtained was the most important factor, followed by the condition of the patient, with aspirate colour and appearance less important. When asked how they would feel about not measuring GRV routinely, the majority (78.2%) of nurses felt worried (140/273 = 51.2%) or very worried (74/273 = 27%). Conclusions Factors affecting the nurses' decision‐making around GRV were based largely on fear of risk (around vomiting and pulmonary aspiration) and compliance with unit protocols. Relevance to Clinical Practice Despite increasing evidence suggesting it is unnecessary, nurses' beliefs around the value of this practice persist and it continues to be embedded into unit protocols around feeding.

Microbiological data are used as indicators of infection, for diagnosis, and the identification of antimicrobial resistance in trials of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. However, several problems have been identified in a recently conducted systematic review (e.g., inconsistency in reporting and oversimplified outcomes), which motivates the need to understand and improve the use of these data including analysis and reporting. We engaged key stakeholders including statisticians, clinicians from both primary and secondary care, and microbiologists. Discussions included issues identified in the systematic review and questions about the value of using microbiological data in clinical trials, perspectives on current microbiological outcomes reported in trials, and alternative statistical approaches to analyse these data. Various factors (such as unclear sample collection process, dichotomising or categorising complex microbiological data, and unclear methods of handling missing data) were identified that contributed to the low quality of the microbiological outcomes and the analysis of these outcomes in trials. Whilst not all of these factors would be easy to overcome, there is room for improvement and a need to encourage researchers to understand the impact of misusing these data. This paper discusses the experience and challenges of using microbiological outcomes in clinical trials.