Current practices and barriers impairing physicians' and nurses' adherence to analgo-sedation recommendations in the intensive care unit--a national survey
INTRODUCTION: Appropriate management of analgo-sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objectives were: a) to describe utilization of analgo-sedation regimens and strategies (assessment using scales, protocolized analgo-sedation and daily sedation interruption (DSI)) and b) to describe and compare perceptions challenging utilization of these strategies, amongst physicians and nurses.
METHODS: In the 101 adult ICUs in Belgium, we surveyed all physicians and a sample of seven nurses per ICU. A multidisciplinary team designed a survey tool based on a previous qualitative study and a literature review. The latter was available in paper (for nurses essentially) and web based (for physicians). Topics addressed included: practices, perceptions regarding recommended strategies and demographics. Pre-testing involved respondents' debriefings and test re-test reliability. Four reminders were sent.
RESULTS: Response rate was 60% (898/1,491 participants) representing 94% (95/101) of all hospitals. Protocols were available to 31% of respondents. Validated scales to monitor pain in patients unable to self-report and to monitor sedation were available to 11% and 75% of respondents, respectively. Frequency of use of sedation scales varied (never to hourly). More physicians than nurses agreed with statements reporting benefits of sedation scales, including: increased autonomy for nurses (82% versus 68%, P < 0.001), enhancement of their role (84% versus 66%, P < 0.001), aid in monitoring administration of sedatives (83% versus 68%, P < 0.001), and cost control (54% versus 29%, P < 0.001). DSI was used in less than 25% of patients for 75% of respondents. More nurses than physicians indicated DSI is contra-indicated in hemodynamic instability (66% versus 53%, P < 0.001) and complicated weaning from mechanical ventilation (47% versus 29%, P < 0.001). Conversely, more physicians than nurses indicated contra-indications including: seizures (56% versus 40%, P < 0.001) and refractory intracranial hypertension (90% versus 83%, P < 0.001). More nurses than physicians agreed with statements reporting DSI impairs patient comfort (60% versus 37%, P < 0.001) and increases complications such as self-extubation (82% versus 69%, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Current analgo-sedation practices leave room for improvement. Physicians and nurses meet different challenges in using appropriate analgo-sedation strategies. Implementational interventions must be tailored according to profession.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2014 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2014 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:18 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Critical care (London, England) - 18(2014), 6 vom: 05. Dez., Seite 655 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Sneyers, Barbara [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 19.10.2015 Date Revised 08.04.2022 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s13054-014-0655-1 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM24428539X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM24428539X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231224134356.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231224s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s13054-014-0655-1 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0814.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM24428539X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)25475212 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Sneyers, Barbara |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Current practices and barriers impairing physicians' and nurses' adherence to analgo-sedation recommendations in the intensive care unit--a national survey |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2014 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 19.10.2015 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 08.04.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a INTRODUCTION: Appropriate management of analgo-sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objectives were: a) to describe utilization of analgo-sedation regimens and strategies (assessment using scales, protocolized analgo-sedation and daily sedation interruption (DSI)) and b) to describe and compare perceptions challenging utilization of these strategies, amongst physicians and nurses | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: In the 101 adult ICUs in Belgium, we surveyed all physicians and a sample of seven nurses per ICU. A multidisciplinary team designed a survey tool based on a previous qualitative study and a literature review. The latter was available in paper (for nurses essentially) and web based (for physicians). Topics addressed included: practices, perceptions regarding recommended strategies and demographics. Pre-testing involved respondents' debriefings and test re-test reliability. Four reminders were sent | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Response rate was 60% (898/1,491 participants) representing 94% (95/101) of all hospitals. Protocols were available to 31% of respondents. Validated scales to monitor pain in patients unable to self-report and to monitor sedation were available to 11% and 75% of respondents, respectively. Frequency of use of sedation scales varied (never to hourly). More physicians than nurses agreed with statements reporting benefits of sedation scales, including: increased autonomy for nurses (82% versus 68%, P < 0.001), enhancement of their role (84% versus 66%, P < 0.001), aid in monitoring administration of sedatives (83% versus 68%, P < 0.001), and cost control (54% versus 29%, P < 0.001). DSI was used in less than 25% of patients for 75% of respondents. More nurses than physicians indicated DSI is contra-indicated in hemodynamic instability (66% versus 53%, P < 0.001) and complicated weaning from mechanical ventilation (47% versus 29%, P < 0.001). Conversely, more physicians than nurses indicated contra-indications including: seizures (56% versus 40%, P < 0.001) and refractory intracranial hypertension (90% versus 83%, P < 0.001). More nurses than physicians agreed with statements reporting DSI impairs patient comfort (60% versus 37%, P < 0.001) and increases complications such as self-extubation (82% versus 69%, P < 0.001) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Current analgo-sedation practices leave room for improvement. Physicians and nurses meet different challenges in using appropriate analgo-sedation strategies. Implementational interventions must be tailored according to profession | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Hypnotics and Sedatives |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Laterre, Pierre-François |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Perreault, Marc M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wouters, Dominique |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Spinewine, Anne |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Critical care (London, England) |d 1997 |g 18(2014), 6 vom: 05. Dez., Seite 655 |w (DE-627)NLM097399787 |x 1466-609X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2014 |g number:6 |g day:05 |g month:12 |g pages:655 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0655-1 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2014 |e 6 |b 05 |c 12 |h 655 | ||