1 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine.
3 Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine.
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017 Nov;14(11):1682-1689. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201612-973OC.
Low-Vt ventilation lowers mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but is underused. Little is known about clinician attitudes toward and perceived barriers to low-Vt ventilation use and their association with actual low-Vt ventilation use.
The objectives of this study were to assess clinicians' attitudes toward and perceived barriers to low-Vt ventilation (Vt <6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight) in patients with ARDS, to identify differences in attitudes and perceived barriers among clinician types, and to compare attitudes toward and perceived barriers to actual low-Vt ventilation use in patients with ARDS.
We conducted a survey of critical care physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists at four non-ARDS Network hospitals in the Chicago region. We compared survey responses with performance in a cohort of 362 patients with ARDS.
Survey responses included clinician attitudes toward and perceived barriers to low-Vt ventilation use. We also measured low-Vt ventilation initiation by these clinicians in 347 patients with ARDS initiated after ARDS onset as well as correlation with clinician attitudes and perceived barriers. Of 674 clinicians surveyed, 467 (69.3%) responded. Clinicians had positive attitudes toward and perceived few process barriers to ARDS diagnosis or initiation of low-Vt ventilation. Physicians had more positive attitudes and perceived fewer barriers than nurses or respiratory therapists. However, use of low-Vt ventilation by all three clinician groups was low. For example, whereas physicians believed that 92.5% of their patients with ARDS warranted treatment with low-Vt ventilation, they initiated low-Vt ventilation for a median (interquartile range) of 7.4% (0 to 14.3%) of their eligible patients with ARDS. Clinician attitudes and perceived barriers were not correlated with low-Vt ventilation initiation.
Clinicians had positive attitudes toward low-Vt ventilation and perceived few barriers to using it, but attitudes and perceived process barriers were not correlated with actual low-Vt ventilation use, which was low. Implementation strategies should be focused on examining other issues, such as ARDS recognition and process solutions, to improve low-Vt ventilation use.
小潮气量通气可降低急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者的死亡率,但实际应用不足。目前对于临床医生对小潮气量通气的态度以及对使用小潮气量通气的感知障碍,及其与实际小潮气量通气使用的关系知之甚少。
本研究旨在评估 ARDS 患者的临床医生对小潮气量通气(Vt<6.5 ml/kg 预测体重)的态度和感知障碍,确定不同临床医生类型之间的态度和感知障碍的差异,并比较 ARDS 患者实际小潮气量通气使用的态度和感知障碍。
我们对芝加哥地区四家非 ARDS 网络医院的重症监护医师、护士和呼吸治疗师进行了一项调查。我们将调查结果与 362 例 ARDS 患者的队列进行了比较。
调查结果包括临床医生对小潮气量通气的使用的态度和感知障碍。我们还测量了这些临床医生在 ARDS 发病后开始治疗的 347 例 ARDS 患者中的小潮气量通气的起始情况,并与临床医生的态度和感知障碍进行了相关性分析。在接受调查的 674 名临床医生中,有 467 名(69.3%)做出了回应。临床医生对 ARDS 诊断或小潮气量通气的启动持积极态度,且感知到的过程障碍较少。与护士或呼吸治疗师相比,医师的态度更为积极,感知到的障碍也更少。然而,所有三组临床医生使用小潮气量通气的比例均较低。例如,尽管医生认为其 92.5%的 ARDS 患者需要接受小潮气量通气治疗,但他们仅对中位(四分位间距)7.4%(0 至 14.3%)符合条件的 ARDS 患者开始小潮气量通气。临床医生的态度和感知障碍与小潮气量通气的起始无关。
临床医生对小潮气量通气持积极态度,认为使用它的障碍很少,但态度和感知的过程障碍与实际的小潮气量通气使用无关,而实际的小潮气量通气使用比例很低。实施策略应侧重于检查 ARDS 识别和流程解决方案等其他问题,以提高小潮气量通气的使用率。