Rose Louise, Fitzgerald Emma, Cook Deborah, Kim Scott, Steinberg Marilyn, Devlin John W, Ashley Betty Jean, Dodek Peter, Smith Orla, Poretta Kerri, Lee Yoon, Burns Karen, Harvey Johanne, Skrobik Yoanna, Fergusson Dean, Meade Maureen, Kraguljac Alan, Burry Lisa, Mehta Sangeeta
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Academic Department of Critical Care, Queen Alexandra Hospital, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
J Crit Care. 2015 Apr;30(2):348-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.10.021. Epub 2014 Oct 30.
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.
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.
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.
Most respondents liked both sedation strategies. Nurses and physicians had different preferences and rationales for liking or disliking each strategy.
在一项多中心随机试验中,比较程序化镇静与程序化镇静加每日中断(DI),我们寻求重症监护病房(ICU)临床医生对每种策略的看法。
在5个ICU中,我们每天向护士和医生发放问卷,询问他们是否喜欢使用分配的策略、回答的原因以及对DI的担忧。
共完成301份问卷,涉及31例患者(15例仅采用程序化镇静,16例采用程序化镇静加DI);117份(59名医生和58名护士)是该医疗服务提供者为该患者完成的第一份问卷,并纳入分析。大多数受访者喜欢使用分配的策略(仅程序化镇静组为81%,程序化镇静加DI组为81%);喜欢程序化镇静加DI的医生比护士多(100%对61%;P<.001)。喜欢分配的镇静策略的最常见原因是更好的神经学评估(程序化镇静加DI组为70%)、使用方便(仅程序化镇静组为58%)以及改善患者预后(仅程序化镇静组为51%,程序化镇静加DI组为44%)。只有19%的临床医生不喜欢分配的镇静策略(仅程序化镇静组和程序化镇静加DI组人数相等)。在DI期间,受访者的担忧包括呼吸功能不全(61%)、疼痛(48%)、躁动(45%)和设备移除(26%)。护士填写的问卷比医生填写的问卷更多地表达了对DI的担忧。
大多数受访者喜欢两种镇静策略。护士和医生对喜欢或不喜欢每种策略有不同的偏好和理由。