School of Medicine, Dentistry & Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Aust Crit Care. 2018 May;31(3):174-179. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2018.02.007. Epub 2018 Mar 23.
Implementation of quality improvement interventions can be enhanced by exploring the perspectives of those who will deliver and receive them. We designed a non-pharmacological bundle for delirium management for a feasibility trial, and we sought to obtain the views of intensive care unit (ICU) staff, survivors, and families on the barriers and facilitators to its implementation.
The objective of this study is to determine the barriers and facilitators to a multicomponent bundle for delirium management in critically ill patients comprising (1) education and family participation, (2) sedation minimisation and pain, agitation, and delirium protocol, (3) early mobilisation, and (4) environmental interventions for sleep, orientation, communication, and cognitive stimulation.
Nine focus group interviews were conducted with ICU staff (n = 68) in 12 UK ICUs. Three focus group interviews were conducted with ICU survivors (n = 12) and their family members (n = 2). Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed using the Braun and Clarke framework.
Overall, staff, survivors, and their families agreed the bundle was acceptable. Facilitating factors for delivering the bundle were staff and relatives' education about potential benefits and encouraging family presence. Facilitating factors for sedation minimisation were evening ward rounds, using non-verbal pain scores, and targeting sedation scores. Barriers identified by staff were inadequate resources, poor education, relatives' anxiety, safety concerns, and ICU culture. Concerns were raised about patient confidentiality when displaying orientation materials and managing resources for early mobility. Survivors cited that flexible visiting and re-establishing normality were important factors; and staff workload, lack of awareness, and poor communication were factors that needed to be considered before implementation.
Generally, the bundle was deemed acceptable and deliverable. However, like any complex intervention, component adaptations will be required depending on resources available to the ICU; in particular, involvement of pharmacists in the ward round and physiotherapists in mobilising intubated patients.
通过探索将要实施和接受改进措施的人员的观点,可以提高质量改进措施的实施效果。我们设计了一个针对 ICU 患者谵妄管理的非药物干预措施包,并旨在了解 ICU 工作人员、患者幸存者及其家属对该措施实施的障碍和促进因素的看法。
本研究旨在确定针对 ICU 患者的多组分谵妄管理综合措施(1)教育和家庭参与,(2)镇静最小化和疼痛、躁动和谵妄方案,(3)早期活动,以及(4)睡眠、定向、沟通和认知刺激的环境干预的障碍和促进因素。
在英国 12 家 ICU 中,对 68 名 ICU 工作人员进行了 9 次焦点小组访谈,对 12 名 ICU 幸存者及其 2 名家属进行了 3 次焦点小组访谈。访谈以数字形式记录、转录,并使用 Braun 和 Clarke 框架进行主题分析。
总的来说,工作人员、幸存者及其家属都认为该措施包是可以接受的。提供该措施包的促进因素是工作人员和家属对潜在益处的了解,以及鼓励家属参与。镇静最小化的促进因素是晚上的病房查房、使用非言语疼痛评分和目标镇静评分。工作人员发现的障碍包括资源不足、教育不足、家属焦虑、安全问题和 ICU 文化。在展示定向材料和管理早期活动资源方面,患者的隐私问题受到关注。幸存者提到灵活的探视和恢复正常生活是重要的因素;而工作人员工作量大、意识不足和沟通不畅等因素,在实施前需要加以考虑。
总体而言,该措施包被认为是可接受和可实施的。然而,像任何复杂的干预措施一样,根据 ICU 可用资源,可能需要对措施包进行调整;特别是在病房查房时需要药剂师参与,在为插管患者进行活动时需要物理治疗师参与。