Trottier S J, Taylor R W
Department of Critical Care Medicine, St. John's Mercy Medical Center, St. Louis University, MO 63141, USA.
New Horiz. 1997 Aug;5(3):201-6.
To survey physicians' attitudes toward the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) and to assess physicians' knowledge of pulmonary artery catheterization.
Mail survey/examination.
Physician members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine in the United States.
A 51-question two-part survey was mailed to U.S. Society of Critical Care Medicine physician members by an independent research firm. The participants were instructed to answer the questions unassisted and to return the survey within one month. The first 20 questions surveyed physicians' attitudes toward the PAC. The remaining 31 multiple-choice questions tested the physicians' knowledge of the PAC and its use. The multiple-choice questions were obtained from a previous study which assessed physicians' knowledge of pulmonary artery catheterization.
Five thousand surveys were mailed in October of 1996; 1095 surveys were returned in November of 1996, yielding a 22% return rate. The survey results were significant in that 95% of the respondents felt that a moratorium against PAC use was not warranted and that 75% of the respondents favored a prospective, randomized, controlled trial involving pulmonary artery catheterization. The mean test score for the multiple-choice questions was 25.6 (82.6%) with a standard deviation of +/- 3.46 and a range of 3 to 31 (10%-100%). The mean score was found to be significantly associated (p <0.001) with the following variables: specialty, practice pattern, number of PAC insertions performed per month, and whether or not the physician was trained and/or certified in critical care medicine. One third of respondents incorrectly identified the pulmonary artery occlusion pressure on a clear tracing and could not identify the major components of oxygen transport.
The results of this mail survey/examination reflect the current attitudes and knowledge of the responding U.S. physician members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine regarding the PAC. The majority of the respondents are in favor of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial involving the PAC; 95% of the respondents feel that a moratorium on further use of the PAC is currently not warranted. Rather than a call for such a moratorium, a call for the development and maintenance of educational, credentialing, and continuous quality improvement policies involving the PAC is warranted and overdue.
调查医生对肺动脉导管(PAC)的态度,并评估医生对肺动脉导管插入术的了解程度。
邮寄调查/测试。
美国危重病医学会的医生成员。
一家独立研究公司向美国危重病医学会的医生成员邮寄了一份包含51个问题的两部分调查问卷。要求参与者独立回答问题,并在一个月内返还调查问卷。前20个问题调查了医生对PAC的态度。其余31个多项选择题测试了医生对PAC及其使用的了解程度。这些多项选择题取自之前一项评估医生对肺动脉导管插入术了解程度的研究。
1996年10月邮寄了5000份调查问卷;1996年11月返还了1095份调查问卷,回复率为22%。调查结果具有重要意义,因为95%的受访者认为没有必要暂停使用PAC,75%的受访者赞成进行一项涉及肺动脉导管插入术的前瞻性、随机、对照试验。多项选择题的平均测试分数为25.6(82.6%),标准差为±3.46,分数范围为3至31(10%-100%)。发现平均分数与以下变量显著相关(p<0.001):专业、执业模式、每月进行的PAC插入次数,以及医生是否接受过危重病医学培训和/或获得认证。三分之一的受访者在清晰的描记图上错误地识别了肺动脉闭塞压,并且无法识别氧运输的主要组成部分。
本次邮寄调查/测试的结果反映了美国危重病医学会参与调查的医生成员目前对PAC的态度和了解程度。大多数受访者赞成进行一项涉及PAC的前瞻性、随机、对照试验;95%的受访者认为目前没有必要暂停进一步使用PAC。与其呼吁暂停使用,不如呼吁制定和维持涉及PAC的教育、认证和持续质量改进政策,这是有必要且早就应该做的。