AIM: A study to explore the impact of implementing a bowel management protocol in a tertiary referral intensive care unit (ICU) in the West of Scotland. METHODS: A three phase study was implemented. Phase 1 - a baseline audit reviewing 26 patients' medical notes and a baseline focus group reviewing the multidisciplinary team's (MDT's) opinions with regard to bowel care management in the ICU. Phase 2 - the implementation of a protocol, updated bowel care chart and education sessions for members of the MDT. Phase 3 - an end of study audit reviewing 27 patients' notes after the implementation of phase 2. Additionally, a further focus group examined the MDT's experiences of the protocol in clinical practice. RESULTS AND FINDINGS: During the phase 1 data collection period, it was evident that there was a haphazard approach to bowel care in the ICU, resulting in poor bowel care documentation and a high incidence of constipation and diarrhoea days. After the interventions of phase 2, bowel care documentation days increased by 13% (p = 0.0003), constipation incidence decreased by 20.7% (p = 0.13) and diarrhoea days reduced by 15.2% (p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Although further evaluation is planned, the protocol implemented in this particular study appears to be a useful tool for the delivery of bowel care in the ICU. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Ensuring appropriate and timely bowel care in the ICU has major implications for the critically ill patients.
AIM: A study to explore the impact of implementing a bowel management protocol in a tertiary referral intensive care unit (ICU) in the West of Scotland. METHODS: A three phase study was implemented. Phase 1 - a baseline audit reviewing 26 patients' medical notes and a baseline focus group reviewing the multidisciplinary team's (MDT's) opinions with regard to bowel care management in the ICU. Phase 2 - the implementation of a protocol, updated bowel care chart and education sessions for members of the MDT. Phase 3 - an end of study audit reviewing 27 patients' notes after the implementation of phase 2. Additionally, a further focus group examined the MDT's experiences of the protocol in clinical practice. RESULTS AND FINDINGS: During the phase 1 data collection period, it was evident that there was a haphazard approach to bowel care in the ICU, resulting in poor bowel care documentation and a high incidence of constipation and diarrhoea days. After the interventions of phase 2, bowel care documentation days increased by 13% (p = 0.0003), constipation incidence decreased by 20.7% (p = 0.13) and diarrhoea days reduced by 15.2% (p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Although further evaluation is planned, the protocol implemented in this particular study appears to be a useful tool for the delivery of bowel care in the ICU. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Ensuring appropriate and timely bowel care in the ICU has major implications for the critically ill patients.