OBJECTIVES: Spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) improve outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, but implementation remains erratic. We examined variation in reported practice, prevalence of attitudes and fears regarding spontaneous awakening trials, and organizational practices associated with routine implementation of spontaneous awakening trials in an ICU quality improvement collaborative. DESIGN: Written survey. SETTING: Michigan Health and Hospital Association's Keystone ICU, a quality improvement collaborative of 73 hospitals. SUBJECTS: Attendees of the yearly Keystone ICU meeting, January 2011, including nurses, physicians, hospital administrators, and other healthcare professionals. INTERVENTION: Respondents were asked about institutional characteristics, spontaneous awakening trial practice, attitudes and barriers regarding spontaneous awakening trials, and organizational cultural characteristics that might influence SAT practice. The association of organizational cultural characteristics and attitudes with reported spontaneous awakening trial use was evaluated using logistic regression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three hundred nineteen participants attended the meeting. The survey response rate was 83.4%. Respondents reported wide variation in approach to spontaneous awakening trial performance and patient selection. 48.6% of respondents reported regular spontaneous awakening trial use, defined as greater than 75% of mechanically ventilated patients undergoing spontaneous awakening trials each day. In bivariable analysis, addressing sedation goals routinely in rounds and having spontaneous awakening trials as part of unit culture were positively associated with regular spontaneous awakening trial use, whereas the perception that spontaneous awakening trials increased short-term adverse effects, staff fears of spontaneous awakening trials, and the perception that spontaneous awakening trials are hard work were negatively associated with regular spontaneous awakening trial use. In multivariable analysis, only addressing sedation in rounds (odds ratio, 2.85 [95% CI, 1.55-5.23]), incorporation of spontaneous awakening trials into unit culture (odds ratio, 3.36 [95% CI, 1.75-6.43]), and the perception that spontaneous awakening trials are hard work (odds ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.96]) remained statistically significantly associated with regular spontaneous awakening trial use. Respondents in managerial positions were less likely to perceive spontaneous awakening trials as hard work (odds ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: Even in a motivated statewide quality improvement collaborative, spontaneous awakening trial practice varies widely and concerns persist regarding spontaneous awakening trials. Cultural practices may counteract the effect of concerns regarding spontaneous awakening trials and are associated with increased performance of this beneficial intervention. Patient selection should be a focus for continuing medical education. Differences in perception of work between management and staff may also be a focus for improved communication.
OBJECTIVES: Spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) improve outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, but implementation remains erratic. We examined variation in reported practice, prevalence of attitudes and fears regarding spontaneous awakening trials, and organizational practices associated with routine implementation of spontaneous awakening trials in an ICU quality improvement collaborative. DESIGN: Written survey. SETTING: Michigan Health and Hospital Association's Keystone ICU, a quality improvement collaborative of 73 hospitals. SUBJECTS: Attendees of the yearly Keystone ICU meeting, January 2011, including nurses, physicians, hospital administrators, and other healthcare professionals. INTERVENTION: Respondents were asked about institutional characteristics, spontaneous awakening trial practice, attitudes and barriers regarding spontaneous awakening trials, and organizational cultural characteristics that might influence SAT practice. The association of organizational cultural characteristics and attitudes with reported spontaneous awakening trial use was evaluated using logistic regression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three hundred nineteen participants attended the meeting. The survey response rate was 83.4%. Respondents reported wide variation in approach to spontaneous awakening trial performance and patient selection. 48.6% of respondents reported regular spontaneous awakening trial use, defined as greater than 75% of mechanically ventilated patients undergoing spontaneous awakening trials each day. In bivariable analysis, addressing sedation goals routinely in rounds and having spontaneous awakening trials as part of unit culture were positively associated with regular spontaneous awakening trial use, whereas the perception that spontaneous awakening trials increased short-term adverse effects, staff fears of spontaneous awakening trials, and the perception that spontaneous awakening trials are hard work were negatively associated with regular spontaneous awakening trial use. In multivariable analysis, only addressing sedation in rounds (odds ratio, 2.85 [95% CI, 1.55-5.23]), incorporation of spontaneous awakening trials into unit culture (odds ratio, 3.36 [95% CI, 1.75-6.43]), and the perception that spontaneous awakening trials are hard work (odds ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.96]) remained statistically significantly associated with regular spontaneous awakening trial use. Respondents in managerial positions were less likely to perceive spontaneous awakening trials as hard work (odds ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: Even in a motivated statewide quality improvement collaborative, spontaneous awakening trial practice varies widely and concerns persist regarding spontaneous awakening trials. Cultural practices may counteract the effect of concerns regarding spontaneous awakening trials and are associated with increased performance of this beneficial intervention. Patient selection should be a focus for continuing medical education. Differences in perception of work between management and staff may also be a focus for improved communication.
Authors: John P Kress; Brian Gehlbach; Maureen Lacy; Neil Pliskin; Anne S Pohlman; Jesse B Hall Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2003-10-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sean M Berenholtz; Julius C Pham; David A Thompson; Dale M Needham; Lisa H Lubomski; Robert C Hyzy; Robert Welsh; Sara E Cosgrove; J Bryan Sexton; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Sam R Watson; Christine A Goeschel; Peter J Pronovost Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Russel J Roberts; Marjolein de Wit; Scott K Epstein; Dorothy Didomenico; John W Devlin Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Peter E Morris; Leah Griffin; Michael Berry; Clif Thompson; R Duncan Hite; Chris Winkelman; Ramona O Hopkins; Amelia Ross; Luz Dixon; Susan Leach; Edward Haponik Journal: Am J Med Sci Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.378
Authors: Miriam M Treggiari; Jacques-André Romand; N David Yanez; Steven A Deem; Jack Goldberg; Leonard Hudson; Claudia-Paula Heidegger; Noel S Weiss Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: William D Schweickert; Mark C Pohlman; Anne S Pohlman; Celerina Nigos; Amy J Pawlik; Cheryl L Esbrook; Linda Spears; Megan Miller; Mietka Franczyk; Deanna Deprizio; Gregory A Schmidt; Amy Bowman; Rhonda Barr; Kathryn E McCallister; Jesse B Hall; John P Kress Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sangeeta Mehta; Lisa Burry; Deborah Cook; Dean Fergusson; Marilyn Steinberg; John Granton; Margaret Herridge; Niall Ferguson; John Devlin; Maged Tanios; Peter Dodek; Robert Fowler; Karen Burns; Michael Jacka; Kendiss Olafson; Yoanna Skrobik; Paul Hébert; Elham Sabri; Maureen Meade Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emily M Boltey; Theodore J Iwashyna; Robert C Hyzy; Sam R Watson; Corine Ross; Deena Kelly Costa Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Deena Kelly Costa; Thomas S Valley; Melissa A Miller; Milisa Manojlovich; Sam R Watson; Phyllis McLellan; Corine Pope; Robert C Hyzy; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Michael Klompas; Deverick Anderson; William Trick; Hilary Babcock; Meeta Prasad Kerlin; Lingling Li; Ronda Sinkowitz-Cochran; E Wesley Ely; John Jernigan; Shelley Magill; Rosie Lyles; Caroline O'Neil; Barrett T Kitch; Ellen Arrington; Michele C Balas; Ken Kleinman; Christina Bruce; Julie Lankiewicz; Michael V Murphy; Christopher E Cox; Ebbing Lautenbach; Daniel Sexton; Victoria Fraser; Robert A Weinstein; Richard Platt Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-02-01 Impact factor: 30.528
Authors: Michele C Balas; Alai Tan; Lorraine C Mion; Brenda Pun; Jin Jun; Audrey Brockman; Jinjian Mu; E Wesley Ely; Eduard E Vasilevskis Journal: Chest Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 10.262
Authors: Markus Kaila; Kirsty Everingham; Petteri Lapinlampi; Petra Peltola; Mika O K Särkelä; Kimmo Uutela; Timothy S Walsh Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Barbara Sneyers; Pierre-François Laterre; Marc M Perreault; Dominique Wouters; Anne Spinewine Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Pamela MacTavish; Tara Quasim; Colin Purdie; Morna Ball; Lesley Barker; Sarah Connelly; Helen Devine; Philip Henderson; Lucy A Hogg; Rakesh Kishore; Phil Lucie; Jennifer Murphy; Peter O'Brien; Martin Shaw; Laura Strachan; Alan Timmins; Theodore J Iwashyna; Joanne McPeake Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-10
Authors: Timothy S Walsh; Kalliopi Kydonaki; Jean Antonelli; Jacqueline Stephen; Robert J Lee; Kirsty Everingham; Janet Hanley; Kimmo Uutelo; Petra Peltola; Christopher J Weir Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 2.692