PURPOSE: To date, there has been no large multicenter, multiprofessional evaluation of protocol and guideline use in the intensive care unit (ICU). The primary purpose of this study was to describe national availability, development, implementation, and assessment of protocols in ICUs. A secondary objective was to compare perceived utility by ease of use, patient safety, cost containment, and compliance of protocols between nurses, physicians, and pharmacists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was developed and tested for validity by 15 clinicians who identified additional domains of interest. An additional 15 clinicians of the 3 different professions evaluated the survey for relevancy and appropriateness of responses. Three survey experts evaluated survey construction. The survey was uploaded to a Web survey tool and pilot tested for clarity and ease of completion. RESULTS: The overall response rate for the survey was 18.1% (n = 614). Popular methods of education for protocol implementation included staff meetings (85.3%) and unit-specific in-services (77.7%). Protocols were most often updated when new information was available (40.8%) or every 12 months (17.9%). The most common limitation to development and implementation was limited personnel resources (24.5%) and physicians not wanting to use them (21.3%), respectively. Clinicians indicated that protocols made their job easier and improved cost containment some or most of the time. Sepsis protocols were identified as most useful in promoting patient outcomes by all 3 professions. CONCLUSIONS: The types of protocols available appear to be those assisting with management of high-alert medications. Overcoming the perceived barriers of protocol use within ICUs requires personnel for development and physician support. A better protocol review process may be necessary to assure optimal content, desired outcomes, and consistency with Institute for Safe Medication Practices guidelines.
PURPOSE: To date, there has been no large multicenter, multiprofessional evaluation of protocol and guideline use in the intensive care unit (ICU). The primary purpose of this study was to describe national availability, development, implementation, and assessment of protocols in ICUs. A secondary objective was to compare perceived utility by ease of use, patient safety, cost containment, and compliance of protocols between nurses, physicians, and pharmacists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was developed and tested for validity by 15 clinicians who identified additional domains of interest. An additional 15 clinicians of the 3 different professions evaluated the survey for relevancy and appropriateness of responses. Three survey experts evaluated survey construction. The survey was uploaded to a Web survey tool and pilot tested for clarity and ease of completion. RESULTS: The overall response rate for the survey was 18.1% (n = 614). Popular methods of education for protocol implementation included staff meetings (85.3%) and unit-specific in-services (77.7%). Protocols were most often updated when new information was available (40.8%) or every 12 months (17.9%). The most common limitation to development and implementation was limited personnel resources (24.5%) and physicians not wanting to use them (21.3%), respectively. Clinicians indicated that protocols made their job easier and improved cost containment some or most of the time. Sepsis protocols were identified as most useful in promoting patient outcomes by all 3 professions. CONCLUSIONS: The types of protocols available appear to be those assisting with management of high-alert medications. Overcoming the perceived barriers of protocol use within ICUs requires personnel for development and physician support. A better protocol review process may be necessary to assure optimal content, desired outcomes, and consistency with Institute for Safe Medication Practices guidelines.
Authors: Sarah M Brolliar; Megan Moore; Hilaire J Thompson; Lauren K Whiteside; Richard B Mink; Mark S Wainwright; Jonathan I Groner; Michael J Bell; Christopher C Giza; Douglas F Zatzick; Richard G Ellenbogen; Linda Ng Boyle; Pamela H Mitchell; Frederick P Rivara; Monica S Vavilala Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Mallory D Woiski; Helena C van Vugt; Anneke Dijkman; Richard P Grol; Abraham Marcus; Johanna M Middeldorp; Ben W Mol; Femke Mols; Martijn A Oudijk; Martina Porath; Hubertina J Scheepers; Rosella P Hermens Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2016-10