Suppr超能文献

在重症监护病房,是什么阻碍了我们遵循镇静建议?一项多中心定性研究。

What stops us from following sedation recommendations in intensive care units? A multicentric qualitative study.

机构信息

Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Pharmacy, Cliniques universitaires saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium.

Department of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Cliniques universitaires saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium.

出版信息

J Crit Care. 2014 Apr;29(2):291-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.11.004. Epub 2013 Nov 7.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) perceptions regarding sedation recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a qualitative study, using face-to-face semistructured interviews. Health care professionals from 4 Belgian hospitals were purposively sampled. We focused on recommendations involving strategies such as protocolized sedation, sedation scales, daily sedation interruption (DSI), and providing analgesia before sedation. Knowledge, perceived barriers, expected outcomes, and responsibilities were discussed for each recommendation. Two researchers independently performed content analysis, classifying quotes according to an interdisciplinary framework and creating new categories for emerging themes.

RESULTS

Data saturation was reached after 21 HCPs (physicians, nurses, and physiotherapists) were interviewed. Quotes were related to HCPs, guidelines or the system. Barriers were diverse according to the type of HCP or level of experience. Task characteristics impairing implementation of protocolized sedation included lack of means communicating goals or tasks to all HCPs providing care, ambiguous responsibilities, and unclear methodology on how to execute the recommendation. Fear of adverse events and lack of clarity regarding contraindications impair implementation of DSI.

CONCLUSION

Barriers impairing implementation of sedation recommendations vary according to the type of HCP and the choice of strategy targeting light sedation (protocolized sedation vs DSI). Improvement strategies must target HCPs separately and tailored to specific recommendation choices.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在探讨医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)对镇静建议的看法。

材料和方法

这是一项定性研究,采用面对面半结构化访谈。从 4 家比利时医院有目的地抽取了医疗保健专业人员。我们专注于涉及策略的建议,如程序化镇静、镇静量表、每日镇静中断(DSI)以及在镇静前提供镇痛。对于每项建议,讨论了知识、感知障碍、预期结果和责任。两名研究人员独立进行内容分析,根据跨学科框架对引语进行分类,并为新出现的主题创建新类别。

结果

在采访了 21 名 HCPs(医生、护士和物理治疗师)后达到了数据饱和。引语与 HCPs、指南或系统有关。根据 HCP 的类型或经验水平,障碍各不相同。妨碍程序化镇静实施的任务特征包括缺乏向所有提供护理的 HCP 传达目标或任务的手段、责任不明确以及如何执行建议的方法不清楚。对不良事件的恐惧以及对禁忌症的不明确妨碍了 DSI 的实施。

结论

妨碍镇静建议实施的障碍根据 HCP 的类型和针对轻度镇静的策略选择(程序化镇静与 DSI)而有所不同。改进策略必须针对 HCP 分别制定,并针对特定建议选择进行定制。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验