Silvia M Hartmann1, Reid Wd Farris2, Ofer Yanay2, Robert M DiBlasi3, Christine N Kearney3, Joe D Zimmerman2, Kristen Carlin4, Jerry J Zimmerman3. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. silvia.hartmann@seattlechildrens.org. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Respiratory Care, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington. 4. Children's Core for Biomedical Statistics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that ventilator weaning protocols provide benefit to children receiving mechanical ventilation, but many protocols do not include explicit instructions for decreasing ventilator support from maximal settings. We evaluated care provider opinions on ventilator weaning recommendations made by a computerized decision support tool. METHODS: Recommendations for ventilator adjustment were generated using a computerized decision support tool based on the ARDSNet protocol using data from children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure admitted to the pediatric ICU (PICU). Attending physicians, fellows, nurse practitioners, and respiratory therapists (RTs) caring for these patients answered a brief survey to assess whether recommendations were reasonable and whether the practitioner believed they could be implemented. RESULTS: RTs completed 99 surveys and ICU providers completed 96 surveys based on data from 10 patients. RTs and ICU providers found 63.9% and 65.3% of recommendations reasonable, respectively. There were 5 instances of disagreement between RTs and ICU providers. The percent of recommendations that RTs thought could be implemented was 29.9%, whereas this figure for ICU providers was 26.3%, with 4 instances of disagreement. Free-text responses indicated that many RTs and ICU providers were concerned about disrupting current patient stability and low tidal volumes. CONCLUSIONS: On initial evaluation, the decision support tool did not appear to be highly acceptable to RTs and ICU providers in our setting because recommendations were rarely implemented. In addition, acceptability did not increase over time as patients generally improved. Most respondents preferred to make no ventilator changes and felt the recommendations were too aggressive. The notable barrier to use was a perception of potential patient instability with weaning.
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that ventilator weaning protocols provide benefit to children receiving mechanical ventilation, but many protocols do not include explicit instructions for decreasing ventilator support from maximal settings. We evaluated care provider opinions on ventilator weaning recommendations made by a computerized decision support tool. METHODS: Recommendations for ventilator adjustment were generated using a computerized decision support tool based on the ARDSNet protocol using data from children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure admitted to the pediatric ICU (PICU). Attending physicians, fellows, nurse practitioners, and respiratory therapists (RTs) caring for these patients answered a brief survey to assess whether recommendations were reasonable and whether the practitioner believed they could be implemented. RESULTS: RTs completed 99 surveys and ICU providers completed 96 surveys based on data from 10 patients. RTs and ICU providers found 63.9% and 65.3% of recommendations reasonable, respectively. There were 5 instances of disagreement between RTs and ICU providers. The percent of recommendations that RTs thought could be implemented was 29.9%, whereas this figure for ICU providers was 26.3%, with 4 instances of disagreement. Free-text responses indicated that many RTs and ICU providers were concerned about disrupting current patient stability and low tidal volumes. CONCLUSIONS: On initial evaluation, the decision support tool did not appear to be highly acceptable to RTs and ICU providers in our setting because recommendations were rarely implemented. In addition, acceptability did not increase over time as patients generally improved. Most respondents preferred to make no ventilator changes and felt the recommendations were too aggressive. The notable barrier to use was a perception of potential patient instability with weaning.