Curtis H Weiss1, David W Baker2,3, Katrina Tulas1, Shayna Weiner4, Meagan Bechel5, Alfred Rademaker6, Angela Fought6, Richard G Wunderink1, Stephen D Persell2. 1. 1 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine. 2. 3 Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine. 3. 2 The Joint Commission, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois; and. 4. 4 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. 5 Medical Scientist Training Program, and. 6. 6 Biostatistics Core Facility, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Low-Vt ventilation lowers mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but is underused. Little is known about clinician attitudes toward and perceived barriers to low-Vt ventilation use and their association with actual low-Vt ventilation use. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess clinicians' attitudes toward and perceived barriers to low-Vt ventilation (Vt <6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight) in patients with ARDS, to identify differences in attitudes and perceived barriers among clinician types, and to compare attitudes toward and perceived barriers to actual low-Vt ventilation use in patients with ARDS. METHODS: We conducted a survey of critical care physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists at four non-ARDS Network hospitals in the Chicago region. We compared survey responses with performance in a cohort of 362 patients with ARDS. RESULTS: Survey responses included clinician attitudes toward and perceived barriers to low-Vt ventilation use. We also measured low-Vt ventilation initiation by these clinicians in 347 patients with ARDS initiated after ARDS onset as well as correlation with clinician attitudes and perceived barriers. Of 674 clinicians surveyed, 467 (69.3%) responded. Clinicians had positive attitudes toward and perceived few process barriers to ARDS diagnosis or initiation of low-Vt ventilation. Physicians had more positive attitudes and perceived fewer barriers than nurses or respiratory therapists. However, use of low-Vt ventilation by all three clinician groups was low. For example, whereas physicians believed that 92.5% of their patients with ARDS warranted treatment with low-Vt ventilation, they initiated low-Vt ventilation for a median (interquartile range) of 7.4% (0 to 14.3%) of their eligible patients with ARDS. Clinician attitudes and perceived barriers were not correlated with low-Vt ventilation initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians had positive attitudes toward low-Vt ventilation and perceived few barriers to using it, but attitudes and perceived process barriers were not correlated with actual low-Vt ventilation use, which was low. Implementation strategies should be focused on examining other issues, such as ARDS recognition and process solutions, to improve low-Vt ventilation use.
RATIONALE: Low-Vt ventilation lowers mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but is underused. Little is known about clinician attitudes toward and perceived barriers to low-Vt ventilation use and their association with actual low-Vt ventilation use. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess clinicians' attitudes toward and perceived barriers to low-Vt ventilation (Vt <6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight) in patients with ARDS, to identify differences in attitudes and perceived barriers among clinician types, and to compare attitudes toward and perceived barriers to actual low-Vt ventilation use in patients with ARDS. METHODS: We conducted a survey of critical care physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists at four non-ARDS Network hospitals in the Chicago region. We compared survey responses with performance in a cohort of 362 patients with ARDS. RESULTS: Survey responses included clinician attitudes toward and perceived barriers to low-Vt ventilation use. We also measured low-Vt ventilation initiation by these clinicians in 347 patients with ARDS initiated after ARDS onset as well as correlation with clinician attitudes and perceived barriers. Of 674 clinicians surveyed, 467 (69.3%) responded. Clinicians had positive attitudes toward and perceived few process barriers to ARDS diagnosis or initiation of low-Vt ventilation. Physicians had more positive attitudes and perceived fewer barriers than nurses or respiratory therapists. However, use of low-Vt ventilation by all three clinician groups was low. For example, whereas physicians believed that 92.5% of their patients with ARDS warranted treatment with low-Vt ventilation, they initiated low-Vt ventilation for a median (interquartile range) of 7.4% (0 to 14.3%) of their eligible patients with ARDS. Clinician attitudes and perceived barriers were not correlated with low-Vt ventilation initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians had positive attitudes toward low-Vt ventilation and perceived few barriers to using it, but attitudes and perceived process barriers were not correlated with actual low-Vt ventilation use, which was low. Implementation strategies should be focused on examining other issues, such as ARDS recognition and process solutions, to improve low-Vt ventilation use.
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Frank J Zadravecz; Christopher Winslow; Michael D Howell; Dana P Edelson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: G R Bernard; A Artigas; K L Brigham; J Carlet; K Falke; L Hudson; M Lamy; J R Legall; A Morris; R Spragg Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Gordon D Rubenfeld; Ellen Caldwell; Eve Peabody; Jim Weaver; Diane P Martin; Margaret Neff; Eric J Stern; Leonard D Hudson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timothy D Girard; John P Kress; Barry D Fuchs; Jason W W Thomason; William D Schweickert; Brenda T Pun; Darren B Taichman; Jan G Dunn; Anne S Pohlman; Paul A Kinniry; James C Jackson; Angelo E Canonico; Richard W Light; Ayumi K Shintani; Jennifer L Thompson; Sharon M Gordon; Jesse B Hall; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard; E Wesley Ely Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-01-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: V Marco Ranieri; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Niall D Ferguson; Ellen Caldwell; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher P Bourdeaux; Matthew Jc Thomas; Timothy H Gould; Gaurav Malhotra; Andreas Jarvstad; Timothy Jones; Iain D Gilchrist Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Cheryl B Lin; Margueritte Cox; DaiWai M Olson; Gavin W Britz; Mark Constable; Gregg C Fonarow; Lee Schwamm; Eric D Peterson; Bimal R Shah Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: V Eric Kerchberger; Ryan M Brown; Matthew W Semler; Zhiguo Zhao; Tatsuki Koyama; David R Janz; Julie A Bastarache; Lorraine B Ware Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-07-06
Authors: Anoopindar K Bhalla; Margaret J Klein; Guillaume Emeriaud; Yolanda M Lopez-Fernandez; Natalie Napolitano; Analia Fernandez; Awni M Al-Subu; Rainer Gedeit; Steven L Shein; Ryan Nofziger; Deyin Doreen Hsing; George Briassoulis; Stavroula Ilia; Florent Baudin; Byron Enrique Piñeres-Olave; Ledys Maria Izquierdo; John C Lin; Ira M Cheifetz; Martin C J Kneyber; Lincoln Smith; Robinder G Khemani; Christopher J L Newth Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: Briana Short; Alexis Serra; Abdul Tariq; Vivek Moitra; Daniel Brodie; Sapana Patel; Matthew R Baldwin; Natalie H Yip Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2020-09-20 Impact factor: 4.298
Authors: Andrew J Knighton; Jacob Kean; Doug Wolfe; Lauren Allen; Jason Jacobs; Lori Carpenter; Carrie Winberg; Jay G Berry; Ithan D Peltan; Colin K Grissom; Raj Srivastava Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2020-07-28