Louise Rose1, Emma Fitzgerald2, Deborah Cook3, Scott Kim4, Marilyn Steinberg4, John W Devlin5, Betty Jean Ashley6, Peter Dodek7, Orla Smith8, Kerri Poretta8, Yoon Lee8, Karen Burns9, Johanne Harvey10, Yoanna Skrobik11, Dean Fergusson12, Maureen Meade13, Alan Kraguljac14, Lisa Burry15, Sangeeta Mehta16. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Academic Department of Critical Care, Queen Alexandra Hospital, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. 3. Departments of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4. Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. School of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 6. St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 7. Division of Critical Care Medicine and Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 8. St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 9. Keenan Research Centre and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine and the Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10. Hôpital Maisonneuve Rosemont, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 11. Département de Médecine, Soins Intensifs, Hôpital Maisonneuve Rosemont, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 12. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 13. Departments of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Department of Critical Care, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 14. Mount Sinai Hospital, and Program in Developmental Stem Cell Biology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 15. Department of Pharmacy and Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 16. Department of Medicine and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, Mount Sinai Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: Geeta.mehta@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Within a multicenter randomized trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily interruption (DI), we sought perspectives of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians regarding each strategy. METHODS: At 5 ICUs, we administered a questionnaire daily to nurses and physicians, asking whether they liked using the assigned strategy, reasons for their responses, and concerns regarding DI. RESULTS:A total of 301 questionnaires were completed, for 31 patients (15 protocol only and 16 DI); 117 (59 physicians and 58 nurses) were the first questionnaire completed by that health care provider for that patient and were included in analyses. Most respondents liked using the assigned strategy (81% protocol only and 81% DI); more physicians than nurses liked DI (100% vs 61%; P < .001). Most common reasons for liking the assigned sedation strategy were better neurologic assessment (70% DI), ease of use (58% protocol only), and improved patient outcomes (51% protocol only and 44% DI). Only 19% of clinicians disliked the assigned sedation strategy (equal numbers for protocol only and DI). Respondents' concerns during DI were respiratory compromise (61%), pain (48%), agitation (45%), and device removal (26%). More questionnaires from nurses than physicians expressed concerns about DI. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents liked both sedation strategies. Nurses and physicians had different preferences and rationales for liking or disliking each strategy.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Within a multicenter randomized trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily interruption (DI), we sought perspectives of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians regarding each strategy. METHODS: At 5 ICUs, we administered a questionnaire daily to nurses and physicians, asking whether they liked using the assigned strategy, reasons for their responses, and concerns regarding DI. RESULTS: A total of 301 questionnaires were completed, for 31 patients (15 protocol only and 16 DI); 117 (59 physicians and 58 nurses) were the first questionnaire completed by that health care provider for that patient and were included in analyses. Most respondents liked using the assigned strategy (81% protocol only and 81% DI); more physicians than nurses liked DI (100% vs 61%; P < .001). Most common reasons for liking the assigned sedation strategy were better neurologic assessment (70% DI), ease of use (58% protocol only), and improved patient outcomes (51% protocol only and 44% DI). Only 19% of clinicians disliked the assigned sedation strategy (equal numbers for protocol only and DI). Respondents' concerns during DI were respiratory compromise (61%), pain (48%), agitation (45%), and device removal (26%). More questionnaires from nurses than physicians expressed concerns about DI. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents liked both sedation strategies. Nurses and physicians had different preferences and rationales for liking or disliking each strategy.
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: Sangeeta Mehta; Maureen Meade; Lisa Burry; Ranjeeta Mallick; Christina Katsios; Dean Fergusson; Peter Dodek; Karen Burns; Margaret Herridge; John W Devlin; Maged Tanios; Robert Fowler; Michael Jacka; Yoanna Skrobik; Kendiss Olafson; Deborah Cook Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Jean-Louis Vincent; Yahya Shehabi; Timothy S Walsh; Pratik P Pandharipande; Jonathan A Ball; Peter Spronk; Dan Longrois; Thomas Strøm; Giorgio Conti; Georg-Christian Funk; Rafael Badenes; Jean Mantz; Claudia Spies; Jukka Takala Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 17.440
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