Development, implementation, and evaluation of an institutional daily awakening and spontaneous breathing trial protocol: a quality improvement project

Awakening and Breathing Coordination: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Determinants of Implementation

Rationale: Routine spontaneous awakening and breathing trial coordination (SAT/SBT) improves outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients, but adherence varies. Understanding barriers to and facilitators of consistent daily use of SAT/SBT (implementation determinants) can guide the development of implementation strategies to increase adherence to these evidence-based interventions. Objectives: We conducted an explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study to measure variation in the routine daily use of SAT/SBT and to identify implementation determinants that might explain variation in SAT/SBT use across 15 intensive care units (ICUs) in urban and rural locations within an integrated, community-based health system. Methods: We described the patient population and measured adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT from January to June 2021, selecting four sites with varied adherence levels for semistructured field interviews. We conducted key informant interviews with critical care nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians/advanced practice clinicians (n = 55) from these four sites between October and December 2021 and performed content analysis to identify implementation determinants of SAT/SBT use. Results: The 15 sites had 1,901 ICU admissions receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for ⩾24 hours during the measurement period. The mean IMV patient age was 58 years, and the median IMV duration was 5.3 days (interquartile range, 2.5-11.9). Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence (within 2 h) was estimated at 21% systemwide (site range, 9-68%). ICU clinicians were generally familiar with SAT/SBT but varied in their knowledge and beliefs about what constituted an evidence-based SAT/SBT. Clinicians reported that SAT/SBT coordination was difficult in the context of existing ICU workflows, and existing protocols did not explicitly define how coordination should be performed. The lack of an agreed-upon system-level measure for tracking daily use of SAT/SBT led to uncertainty regarding what constituted adherence. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic increased clinician workloads, impacting performance. Conclusions: Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence varied substantially across 15 ICUs within an integrated, community-based health system. Implementation strategies that address barriers identified by this study, including knowledge deficits, challenges regarding workflow coordination, and the lack of performance measurement, should be tested in future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials to increase adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT and minimize harm related to the prolonged use of mechanical ventilation and sedation.

Implementation of coordinated spontaneous awakening and breathing trials using telehealth-enabled, real-time audit and feedback for clinician adherence (TEACH): a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients on mechanical ventilation often require sedation and analgesia to improve comfort and decrease pain. Prolonged sedation and analgesia, however, may increase time on mechanical ventilation, risk for ventilator associated pneumonia, and delirium. Coordinated interruptions in sedation [spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)] and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) increase ventilator-free days and improve mortality. Coordination of SATs and SBTs is difficult with substantial implementation barriers due to difficult-to-execute sequencing between nurses and respiratory therapists. Telehealth-enabled remote care has the potential to overcome these barriers and improve coordinated SAT and SBT adherence by enabling proactive high-risk patient monitoring, surveillance, and real-time assistance to frontline ICU teams.

METHODS

The telehealth-enabled, real-time audit and feedback for clinician adherence (TEACH) study will determine whether adding a telehealth augmented real-time audit and feedback to a usual supervisor-led audit and feedback intervention will yield higher coordinated SAT and SBT adherence and more ventilator-free days in mechanically ventilated patients than a usual supervisor-led audit and feedback intervention alone in a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomized clinical trial in 12 Intermountain Health hospitals with 15 ICUs. In the active comparator control group (six hospitals), the only intervention is the usual supervisor-led audit and feedback implementation. The telehealth-enabled support (TEACH) intervention in six hospitals adds real-time identification of patients eligible for a coordinated SAT and SBT and consultative input from telehealth respiratory therapists, nurses, and physicians to the bedside clinicians to promote adherence including real-time assistance with execution. All intubated and mechanically ventilated patients ≥ 16 years of age are eligible for enrollment except for patients who die on the day of intubation or have preexisting brain death. Based on preliminary power analyses, we plan a 36-month intervention period that includes a 90-day run-in period. Estimated enrollment in the final analysis is up to 9900 mechanically ventilated patients over 33 months.

DISCUSSION

The TEACH study will enhance implementation science by providing insight into how a telehealth intervention augmenting a usual audit and feedback implementation may improve adherence to coordinated SAT and SBT and increase ventilator-free days.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05141396 , registered 12/02/2021.

Factors influencing the implementation of a ventilation weaning protocol in an adult intensive care unit: a qualitative multidisciplinary evaluation

PURPOSE

Development of protocolized care in the intensive care unit (ICU) improves patient outcomes, but presents multiple challenges. A mechanical ventilation weaning protocol (WP) was adopted in our institution but was underused. This study aimed to determine the factors that influenced the implementation of this protocol locally.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative descriptive study using semidirected interviews in small profession-specific focus groups. The interviews were based on a standardized guide covering the major domains found in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. A total of 32 participants across four key professions were recruited. The interviews were transcribed and codified sequentially, followed by categorization and analysis.

RESULTS

Three broad factors emerged that negatively impacted the implementation of the WP. First, the goals of the WP differed between professional groups. This difference led to significant frustration and breaches in collaboration. Second, there was a lack of a continuous quality improvement process. Third, the WP was incompatible with the routine and procedures already in place at the time of implementation. Time-of-day of WP application and patient safety concerns were specifically identified issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a continuous improvement process with regular and specific follow-up may help identify potential challenges and thus help ensure a more consistent use of the WP.

The ABCDE bundle implementation in an intensive care unit: Facilitators and barriers perceived by nurses and doctors

AIM

To describe the facilitators and barriers perceived by healthcare teams after the implementation of the Awakening, Breathing, Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management and Early mobility bundle in an intensive care unit in Italy. This multicomponent intervention strategy has been associated with lower probabilities of delirium, improved functional outcomes and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

A survey study conducted between June 2015 and May 2016 explored variables related to intensive care unit team members: perceptions of delirium; knowledge of the Awakening, Breathing, Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management and Early mobility bundle; teamwork perception and resource availability.

RESULTS

Most of the participants affirmed having reasonable knowledge of delirium, outcomes of delirious episodes, Awakening, Breathing, Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management and Early mobility bundle components and their effectiveness. Low coordination between healthcare professionals was identified as a barrier. Overall, the time elapsing from the beginning of implementation of the bundle determined an increase in levels of awareness and confidence in the application of the bundle protocol and the Confusion Assessment Method Intensive Care Unit scale.

CONCLUSION

Issues with the Awakening, Breathing, Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management and Early mobility bundle relating to coordination, management and interdisciplinary ward rounds are critical and should be remedied and monitored. This study could provide the basis for improving bundle implementation strategies and surveying levels of progression in other intensive care units.

A multisite study of nurse-reported perceptions and practice of ABCDEF bundle components

OBJECTIVES

ABCDEF bundle implementation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is associated with dose dependent improvements in patient outcomes. The objective was to compare nurse attitudes about the ABCDEF bundle to self-reported adherence to bundle components.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Nurses providing direct patient care in 28 ICUs within 18 hospitals across the United States.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

53-item survey of attitudes and practice of the ABCDEF bundle components was administered between November 2011 and August 2015 (n = 1661).

RESULTS

We did not find clinically significant correlations between nurse attitudes and adherence to Awakening trials, Breathing trials, and sedation protocol adherence (r_s = 0.05-0.28) or sedation plan discussion during rounds and Awakening and Breathing trial Coordination (r_s = 0.19). Delirium is more likely to be discussed during rounds when ICU physicians and nurse managers facilitate delirium reduction (r_s = 0.27-0.36). Early mobilization is more likely to occur when ICU physicians, nurse managers, staffing, equipment, and the ICU environment facilitate early mobility (r_s = 0.36-0.47). Physician leadership had the strongest correlation with reporting an ICU environment that facilitates ABCDEF bundle implementation (r_s = 0.63-0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse attitudes about bundle implementation did not predict bundle adherence. Nurse manager and physician leadership played a large role in creating a supportive ICU environment.

Strategies to effect change in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on implementation efforts in the care of critically ill patients, with a focus on work published in the last 2 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Only half of surveyed members of the multidisciplinary care team in the ICU were aware of the Choosing Wisely campaign, and of those that were, approximately one-third reported no implementation of the recommendations. Barriers to implementation of the ABCDE bundle extend to beyond patient-level domains, and include clinician-related, protocol-related, and other domains. Prospective audit and feedback approaches have demonstrated moderate success for improving the quality of antibiotic prescription practices in the ICU.

SUMMARY

Clinical research in intensive care has moved beyond simple discovery and dissemination. Best practices must be applied to effect change in ICU care, requiring the application of principles from implementation science. Future work should move beyond simple before-after evaluations to provide a stronger case for causal inference following implementation efforts.

Preventing ICU Subsyndromal Delirium Conversion to Delirium With Low-Dose IV Haloperidol: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of scheduled low-dose haloperidol versus placebo for the prevention of delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥ 4) administered to critically ill adults with subsyndromal delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist = 1-3).

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Three 10-bed ICUs (two medical and one surgical) at an academic medical center in the United States.

PATIENTS

Sixty-eight mechanically ventilated patients with subsyndromal delirium without complicating neurologic conditions, cardiac surgery, or requiring deep sedation.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive IV haloperidol 1 mg or placebo every 6 hours until delirium occurred (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥ 4 with psychiatric confirmation), 10 days of therapy had elapsed, or ICU discharge.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the haloperidol (n = 34) and placebo (n = 34) groups. A similar number of patients given haloperidol (12/34 [35%]) and placebo (8/34 [23%]) developed delirium (p = 0.29). Haloperidol use reduced the hours per study day spent agitated (Sedation Agitation Scale ≥ 5) (p = 0.008), but it did not influence the proportion of 12-hour ICU shifts patients spent alive without coma (Sedation Agitation Scale ≤ 2) or delirium (p = 0.36), the time to first delirium occurrence (p = 0.22), nor delirium duration (p = 0.26). Days of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.80), ICU mortality (p = 0.55), and ICU patient disposition (p = 0.22) were similar in the two groups. The proportion of patients who developed corrected QT-interval prolongation (p = 0.16), extrapyramidal symptoms (p = 0.31), excessive sedation (p = 0.31), or new-onset hypotension (p = 1.0) that resulted in study drug discontinuation was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose scheduled haloperidol, initiated early in the ICU stay, does not prevent delirium and has little therapeutic advantage in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults with subsyndromal delirium.

[A first step towards safer sedation and analgesia: A systematic evaluation of outcomes and level of sedation and analgesia in the mechanically ventilated critically ill patient]

INTRODUCTION

Safe analgesia and sedation strategies are necessary in order to avoid under or over sedation, as well as improving the comfort and safety of critical care patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare and contrast a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation and management of analgesia and sedation in a group of critical care patients on mechanical ventilation with the usual procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort study with contemporary series was conducted in a tertiary care medical-surgical ICU February to November during 2013 and 2014. The inclusion criteria were mechanical ventilation ≥ 24h and use of sedation by continuous infusion. Sedation was monitored using the Richmond agitation-sedation scale or bispectral index, and analgesia were measured using the numeric rating scale, or behavioural indicators of pain scale. The study variables included; mechanical ventilation time, weaning time, ventilation support time, artificial airway time, continuous sedative infusion time, daily dose and frequency of analgesic and sedative drug use, hospital stay, and ICU and hospital mortality, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, bispectral index, numeric rating scale, and behavioural indicators of pain scale measurements. Kruskal Wallis and Chi², and a significance of p<.05 were used.

RESULTS

The study included 153 admissions, 75 pre-intervention and 78 post-intervention, with a mean age of 55.7±13 years old, and 67% men. Both groups showed similarities in age, reason for admission, and APACHE. There were non-significant decreases in mechanical ventilation time 4 (1.4-9.2) and 3.2 (1.4-8.1) days, respectively; p= 0.7, continuous sedative infusion time 6 (3-11) and 5 (3-11) days; p= 0.9, length of hospital stay 29 (18-52); 25 (14-41) days; p= 0.1, ICU mortality (8 vs. 5%; p= 0.4), and hospital mortality (10.6 vs. 9.4%: p= 0.8). Daily doses of midazolam and remifentanil decreased 347 (227-479) mg/day; 261 (159-358) mg/day; p= 0.02 and 2175 (1427-3285) mcg/day; 1500 (715-2740) mcg/day; p= 0.02, respectively. There were increases in the use of remifentanil (32% vs. 51%; p= 0.01), dexmedetomidine (0 vs.6%; p= 0.02), dexketoprofen (60 vs. 76%; p= 0.03), and haloperidol (15 vs.28%; p= 0.04). The use of morphine decreased (71 vs. 54%; p= 0.03). There was an increase in the number of measurements and Richmond agitation-sedation scale scores 6 (3-17); 21 (9-39); p< 0.0001, behavioural indicators of pain scale 6 (3-18); 19(8-33); p< 0.001 and numeric rating scale 4 (2-6); 8 (6-17); p< 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation of analgesia and sedation management achieved an improvement in monitoring and adequacy of dose to patient needs, leading to improved outcomes.

Pharmacist leadership in ICU quality improvement: coordinating spontaneous awakening and breathing trials

BACKGROUND

Coordinating efforts across disciplines in the intensive care unit is a key component of quality improvement (QI) efforts. Spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are considered key components of guidelines, yet unfortunately are often not done or coordinated properly.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a pharmacist-driven awakening and breathing coordination (ABC) QI program would improve compliance (ie, process measures) as compared with the previous protocol, which did not involve pharmacists.

METHODS

The QI program included pharmacist-led education, daily discussion on rounds, and weekly performance reports to staff. Using a pre-QI versus during-QI versus post-QI intervention design, we compared data from 500 control ventilator-days (pre-QI period) versus 580 prospective ventilator-days (during-QI period). We then evaluated the sustainability of the QI program in 216 ventilator-days in the post-QI period.

RESULTS

SAT safety screens were performed on only 20% pre-QI patient-days versus 97% of during-QI patient-days (P < 0.001) and 100% of post-QI patient-days (P = 0.25). The rates of passing the SAT safety screen in pre-QI and during-QI periods were 63% versus 78% (P = 0.03) and 81% in the post-QI period (P = 0.86). The rates of SATs among eligible patients on continuous infusions were only 53% in the pre-QI versus 85% in the during-QI (P = 0.0001) and 87% in the post-QI (P = 1) periods.

CONCLUSIONS

In this QI initiative, a pharmacist-driven, interdisciplinary ABC protocol significantly improved process measures compliance, comparing the pre-QI versus during-QI rates of screening, performing, and coordinating SAT and SBTs, and these results were sustained in the 8-month follow-up period post-QI program.

Clinical outcomes associated with high, intermediate, and low rates of failed extubation in an intensive care unit

PURPOSE

Extubation failure is associated with adverse outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, and it is believed that high rates of failed planned extubation (FPE) should be avoided. However, many believe that very low rates may also correlate with adverse outcomes if resulting from overly conservative weaning practices. We examined the relationship between the percentage of FPE (%FPE) and associated outcomes, with the aim of elucidating a favorable middle range.

METHODS

A total of 1395 extubations were analyzed in mechanically ventilated subjects. Monthly %FPE values were separated into tertiles. Ventilator-free days (VFDs), intensive care unit-free days (IFDs), and mortality were compared among tertiles.

RESULTS

Monthly %FPE tertiles were as follows: low, less than 7%; intermediate, 7% to 15%; and high, greater than 15%. There were significant differences in VFDs and IFDs by tertile from low to high (VFDs: low, 11.8; intermediate, 12.1; high, 9.9 [P = .003]; IFDs: low, 10.5; intermediate, 10.7; high, 9.0 [P = .033]). Post hoc comparisons demonstrated significant differences between the middle and high tertiles for both VFDs and IFDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although exact rates may vary depending on setting, this suggests that a high %FPE (>15) should be avoided in the intensive care unit and that there may be an intermediate range where ventilator outcomes are optimized.

Current practices and barriers impairing physicians' and nurses' adherence to analgo-sedation recommendations in the intensive care unit--a national survey

Introduction

Appropriate management of analgo-sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objectives were: a) to describe utilization of analgo-sedation regimens and strategies (assessment using scales, protocolized analgo-sedation and daily sedation interruption (DSI)) and b) to describe and compare perceptions challenging utilization of these strategies, amongst physicians and nurses.

Methods

In the 101 adult ICUs in Belgium, we surveyed all physicians and a sample of seven nurses per ICU. A multidisciplinary team designed a survey tool based on a previous qualitative study and a literature review. The latter was available in paper (for nurses essentially) and web based (for physicians). Topics addressed included: practices, perceptions regarding recommended strategies and demographics. Pre-testing involved respondents’ debriefings and test re-test reliability. Four reminders were sent.

Results

Response rate was 60% (898/1,491 participants) representing 94% (95/101) of all hospitals. Protocols were available to 31% of respondents. Validated scales to monitor pain in patients unable to self-report and to monitor sedation were available to 11% and 75% of respondents, respectively. Frequency of use of sedation scales varied (never to hourly). More physicians than nurses agreed with statements reporting benefits of sedation scales, including: increased autonomy for nurses (82% versus 68%, P <0.001), enhancement of their role (84% versus 66%, P <0.001), aid in monitoring administration of sedatives (83% versus 68%, P <0.001), and cost control (54% versus 29%, P <0.001). DSI was used in less than 25% of patients for 75% of respondents. More nurses than physicians indicated DSI is contra-indicated in hemodynamic instability (66% versus 53%, P <0.001) and complicated weaning from mechanical ventilation (47% versus 29%, P <0.001). Conversely, more physicians than nurses indicated contra-indications including: seizures (56% versus 40%, P <0.001) and refractory intracranial hypertension (90% versus 83%, P <0.001). More nurses than physicians agreed with statements reporting DSI impairs patient comfort (60% versus 37%, P <0.001) and increases complications such as self-extubation (82% versus 69%, P <0.001).

Conclusions

Current analgo-sedation practices leave room for improvement. Physicians and nurses meet different challenges in using appropriate analgo-sedation strategies. Implementational interventions must be tailored according to profession.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0655-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinician perspectives on protocols designed to minimize sedation

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.

Evaluation of a minimal sedation protocol using ICU sedative consumption as a monitoring tool: a quality improvement multicenter project

Introduction

Oversedation frequently occurs in ICUs. We aimed to evaluate a minimal sedation policy, using sedative consumption as a monitoring tool, in a network of ICUs targeting decrement of oversedation and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration.

Methods

A prospective quality improvement project was conducted in ten ICUs within a network of nonteaching hospitals in Brazil during a 2-year period (2010 to 2012). In the first 12 months (the preintervention period), we conducted an audit to identify sedation practice and barriers to current guideline-based practice regarding sedation. In the postintervention period, we implemented a multifaceted program, including multidisciplinary daily rounds, and monthly audits focusing on sedative consumption, feedback and benchmarking purposes. To analyze the effect of the campaign, we fit an interrupted time series (ITS). To account for variability among the network ICUs, we fit a hierarchical model.

Results

During the study period, 21% of patients received MV (4,851/22,963). In the postintervention period, the length of MV was lower (3.91 ± 6.2 days versus 3.15 ± 4.6 days; mean difference, −0.76 (95% CI, −1.10; −0.43), P <0.001) and 28 ventilator-free days were higher (16.07 ± 12.2 days versus 18.33 ± 11.6 days; mean difference, 2.30 (95% CI, 1.57; 3.00), P <0.001) than in the preintervention period. Midazolam consumption (in milligrams per day of MV) decreased from 329 ± 70 mg/day to 163 ± 115 mg/day (mean difference, −167 (95% CI, −246; −87), P <0.001). In contrast, consumption of propofol (P = 0.007), dexmedetomidine (P = 0.017) and haloperidol (P = 0.002) increased in the postintervention period, without changes in the consumption of fentanyl. Through ITS, age (P = 0.574) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (P = 0.176) remained stable. The length of MV showed a secular effect (secular trend β₁ = −0.055, P = 0.012) and a strong decrease immediately after the intervention (intervention β₂ = −0.976, P <0.001). The impact was maintained over the course of one year, despite the waning trend for the intervention’s effect (postintervention trend β₃ = 0.039, P = 0.095).

Conclusions

By using a light sedation policy in a group of nonteaching hospitals, we reproduced the benefits that have previously been demonstrated in controlled settings. Furthermore, systematic monitoring of sedative consumption should be a feasible instrument for supporting the implementation of a protocol on a large scale.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0580-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.