Nurses' and physicians' knowledge and skills in non-invasive ventilation: Equipment and contextual influences

OBJECTIVES

To assess non-invasive ventilation knowledge and skills among nurses and physicians in different contexts: equipment and contextual influences.

METHOD

Cross-sectional, descriptive study in 4 intensive care units (ICU) (1 surgical, 3 medical-surgical), 1 postsurgical recovery unit, 2 emergency departments (ED) and 3 wards, in 4 hospitals (3 university, 1 community) with 407 professionals. A 13-item survey, validated in the setting, was applied (Kappa index, 0.97 (95% CI [.965-.975]).

RESULTS

Nurses (63.7% response); physicians (39% response). The overall percentage of correct responses was 50%. Scored from 1 to 5, with lower scores reflecting more knowledge, nurses scored 3.27±.5 vs 2.62±.5 physicians, respectively (mean difference,.65 (95% CI: .48-.82, P<.001). There were no differences between hospitals or units (P=.07 and P=.09). A notable percentage of respondents incorrectly identified the patient-ventilator synchronization strategy as "covering the expiratory port" (intentional leaks) and pressing the mask against the patient's face (unintentional leaks) (28.2% ICU, 22.5% ED, 8.3% postoperative resuscitation, 61.5% wards), with no difference between nurses and physicians (27.9% vs 23.4%, P=.6). Only 50% of nurse respondents correctly answered a question about measuring mask size and just 11.7% of the nurses knew the "2-finger fit" adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in nurses' and physicians' knowledge according to the setting studied. The lack of knowledge regarding NIV therapy depended on training received and material available. To reduce the existent confusion between intentional and nonintentional leak, the use of a single type of NIV supply and providing an appropriate level of training for nurses is recommended.

Optimising non-invasive mechanical ventilation: Which unit should care for these patients? A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has extended beyond intensive care units (ICUs), becoming usual practice in emergency departments (EDs) and general wards.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the relationship between nursing care and NIV outcome in different hospital units.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

Three university hospitals and one community hospital participated in a prospective observational cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Ten units participated: 4 ICUs (1 surgical, 3 medical-surgical), 3 recovery (1 postsurgical, 2 EDs, 3 general wards).

METHOD

Treatment success/failure, interface intolerance and complications were evaluated according to patient characteristics, nursing care provided, and procedures used. Complications analysed included bronchoaspiration, pneumothorax, skin lesions, inability to manage secretions, eye irritations, deteriorating level of consciousness, gastric distension, and excessive air losses around the mask.

RESULTS

Of 387 patients, 194 (50.1%) were treated in ICU, 121 (31.3%) in ED, 38 (9.8%) postsurgery, and 34 (8.8%) in general wards. Regression analysis, adjusted for APACHE score and NIV indication, showed 3.3 times greater risk of NIV failure (95% CI [1.2-9.2]) in a university-hospital ICU with <50 NIV cases/year, compared to a community hospital ICU. In ICUs and general wards, NIV was suspended in 12% of patients due to interface intolerance. Acute-on-chronic lung diseases (ACLD) had lower risk of NIV failure (OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.06-0.69]) and lack of humidification was not associated with treatment failure (OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1-0.4]). Poor secretion management was linked to pneumonia (OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.1-5.9]) and early weaning/extubation (OR 3.3 [95% CI 1.2-8.9]). Interface intolerance was associated with conventional ICU ventilators (OR 4.4 [95% CI 2.1-9.2]) and nasal skin lesions with excessive air losses (OR 2.4 [95% CI 1.1-5.3]), especially with oronasal masks (OR 3.5 [95% CI 1.1-11.3]).

CONCLUSIONS

Acute respiratory failure patients with pneumonia admitted to general wards had increased interface intolerance and NIV failure. Rotating mask types could improve NIV success in any unit administering this therapy.

[Intensive care unit profesionals's knowledge about non invasive ventilation comparative analysis]

AIMS

The literature highlights the lack of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) protocols and the variability of the knowledge of NIV between intensive care units (ICU) and hospitals, so we want to compare NIV nurses's Knowledge from 4 multipurpose ICU and one surgical ICU.

METHODS

Multicenter, crosscutting, descriptive study in three university hospitals. The survey instrument was validated in a pilot test, and the calculated Kappa index was 0.9. Returning a completed survey is an indication of informed consent. Analysis by Chi square test.

RESULTS

117 responded (65%) nurses, 11±9.7 years of experience in ICU and 9.2±7.2 in use of NIV. One of the multipurpose ICU, was initiated NIV an average of 6 years later than the others (95% CI [3.3 to 8.6], P<.001). Only 23.1% of nurses would place a non-vented mask (with no exhalation port) by conventional ventilator, the rest any kind of face mask. 12.7% believed that the mask must be adjusted to the "2-finger" fit while 29% would seal the mask to the patient's face and cover the mask opening where air escapes to facilitate patient/ventilator synchronization. In the surgical ICU agitation identifies mostly as a complication of NIV compared with multipurpose UCIs (31.6% vs 1.8%, P<.001). 56.4% of nurses do not consider respiratory physiotherapy as nursing care, with no difference between units.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge about types of interface is very dependent on the material of the unit. More training for complications of NIV as agitation and handling secretions it is necessary.