BACKGROUND: Metered-dose inhalers and spacers (MDI+S) are at least as effective as nebulizers for treating children with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. Despite advantages in terms of efficacy, side effects, and ease of use, MDI+S are not used in many North American pediatric emergency departments (PEDs). OBJECTIVES: To survey emergency physicians, emergency nurses, and respirologists in Canadian pediatric teaching hospitals regarding their practices, beliefs, and barriers to change with respect to bronchodilator delivery. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, mailed survey of all emergency physicians, all respirologists, and a random sample of emergency nurses at ten Canadian PEDs. RESULTS: A total of 291 of 349 health care professionals (83%) responded. Twenty-one percent of emergency physicians use MDI+S in the PED (largely concentrated at two "user sites"). A majority at nonuser sites, and virtually all professionals at user sites, responded that MDI+S are at least as effective as nebulizers, switching to MDI+S is justified by existing research, patient outcomes would be equal or better, and they have the required knowledge and skills to use MDI+S in the emergency department. The largest perceived barriers to MDI+S implementation include concerns regarding safety and costs, related to feasibility of providing and sterilizing spacers, and parental expectations for nebulizers. Other barriers included staff beliefs regarding the effectiveness of MDI+S, changes in nursing workload, and lack of a physician champion for change. CONCLUSIONS: MDI+S are infrequently used to treat patients with acute asthma in Canadian PEDs, despite the fact that most emergency staff believe they are effective. Important barriers to using MDI+S have been identified in this study and should be used to guide future implementation strategies.
BACKGROUND: Metered-dose inhalers and spacers (MDI+S) are at least as effective as nebulizers for treating children with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. Despite advantages in terms of efficacy, side effects, and ease of use, MDI+S are not used in many North American pediatric emergency departments (PEDs). OBJECTIVES: To survey emergency physicians, emergency nurses, and respirologists in Canadian pediatric teaching hospitals regarding their practices, beliefs, and barriers to change with respect to bronchodilator delivery. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, mailed survey of all emergency physicians, all respirologists, and a random sample of emergency nurses at ten Canadian PEDs. RESULTS: A total of 291 of 349 health care professionals (83%) responded. Twenty-one percent of emergency physicians use MDI+S in the PED (largely concentrated at two "user sites"). A majority at nonuser sites, and virtually all professionals at user sites, responded that MDI+S are at least as effective as nebulizers, switching to MDI+S is justified by existing research, patient outcomes would be equal or better, and they have the required knowledge and skills to use MDI+S in the emergency department. The largest perceived barriers to MDI+S implementation include concerns regarding safety and costs, related to feasibility of providing and sterilizing spacers, and parental expectations for nebulizers. Other barriers included staff beliefs regarding the effectiveness of MDI+S, changes in nursing workload, and lack of a physician champion for change. CONCLUSIONS:MDI+S are infrequently used to treat patients with acute asthma in Canadian PEDs, despite the fact that most emergency staff believe they are effective. Important barriers to using MDI+S have been identified in this study and should be used to guide future implementation strategies.
Authors: Shannon D Scott; Martin H Osmond; Kathy A O'Leary; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Terry Klassen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 7.327