Factors influencing nurses' use of sedation interruptions in a critical care unit: a descriptive qualitative study.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nicole D Graham, Ian D Graham, Brandi Vanderspank-Wright, Letitia Nadalin Penno, Dean A Fergusson, Janet E Squires
{"title":"Factors influencing nurses' use of sedation interruptions in a critical care unit: a descriptive qualitative study.","authors":"Nicole D Graham, Ian D Graham, Brandi Vanderspank-Wright, Letitia Nadalin Penno, Dean A Fergusson, Janet E Squires","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and aims: </strong>This study examined critical care nurses', physicians', and allied health professionals' perceptions of factors that support, inhibit, or limit the use of sedation interruption (SI) to improve the use of this integral component of care for mechanically ventilated patients.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a theory-based, descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with critical care registered nurses, respiratory therapists, a pharmacist, and a physician in a hospital in Ontario, Canada. The interview guide and analysis were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and transcripts were analyzed using content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 9 facilitators and 20 barriers to SI use by nurses. Facilitators included the innovation (importance of protocols) and potential adopters (comfort with the skill). The barriers were the potential adopters' (nurses) knowledge gaps regarding the performance and goal of SI and the practice environment (lack of time, availability of extra staff, and lack of multidisciplinary rounds).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study identified facilitators and barriers to SI for mechanically ventilated patients. Implementation efforts must address barriers associated with nurses, the environment, and contextual factors. A team-based approach is essential, as the absence of interprofessional rounds is a significant barrier to the appropriate use or non-use of SI. Future research can focus on the indications, contraindications, and goals of SI, emphasizing a shared appreciation for these factors across disciplines. Nursing capacity to manage a patient waking up from sedation is necessary for point-of-care adherence; future research should focus on the best ways to do so. Implementation study designs should use theory and evidence-based determinants of SI to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap.</p><p><strong>Spanish abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A178.</p>","PeriodicalId":48473,"journal":{"name":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","volume":" ","pages":"316-329"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11323761/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000415","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and aims: This study examined critical care nurses', physicians', and allied health professionals' perceptions of factors that support, inhibit, or limit the use of sedation interruption (SI) to improve the use of this integral component of care for mechanically ventilated patients.

Method: We conducted a theory-based, descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with critical care registered nurses, respiratory therapists, a pharmacist, and a physician in a hospital in Ontario, Canada. The interview guide and analysis were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and transcripts were analyzed using content analysis.

Results: We identified 9 facilitators and 20 barriers to SI use by nurses. Facilitators included the innovation (importance of protocols) and potential adopters (comfort with the skill). The barriers were the potential adopters' (nurses) knowledge gaps regarding the performance and goal of SI and the practice environment (lack of time, availability of extra staff, and lack of multidisciplinary rounds).

Conclusion: This study identified facilitators and barriers to SI for mechanically ventilated patients. Implementation efforts must address barriers associated with nurses, the environment, and contextual factors. A team-based approach is essential, as the absence of interprofessional rounds is a significant barrier to the appropriate use or non-use of SI. Future research can focus on the indications, contraindications, and goals of SI, emphasizing a shared appreciation for these factors across disciplines. Nursing capacity to manage a patient waking up from sedation is necessary for point-of-care adherence; future research should focus on the best ways to do so. Implementation study designs should use theory and evidence-based determinants of SI to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap.

Spanish abstract: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A178.

影响重症监护病房护士使用镇静中断的因素:一项描述性定性研究。
引言和目的:本研究调查了重症监护护士、医生和专职医疗人员对支持、抑制或限制使用镇静中断(SI)的因素的看法,以改进机械通气患者护理中这一不可或缺的组成部分的使用:我们对加拿大安大略省一家医院的重症监护注册护士、呼吸治疗师、药剂师和医生进行了半结构化访谈,开展了一项基于理论的描述性定性研究。访谈指南和分析参考了理论领域框架,并采用内容分析法对访谈记录进行了分析:结果:我们确定了护士使用 SI 的 9 个促进因素和 20 个障碍。促进因素包括创新(协议的重要性)和潜在采用者(对技能的舒适度)。障碍包括潜在采用者(护士)对 SI 的性能和目标的认识不足以及实践环境(缺乏时间、额外人员的可用性以及缺乏多学科查房):本研究确定了对机械通气患者实施 SI 的促进因素和障碍。实施工作必须解决与护士、环境和背景因素相关的障碍。以团队为基础的方法至关重要,因为缺乏跨专业查房是适当使用或不使用 SI 的重大障碍。未来的研究可以重点关注 SI 的适应症、禁忌症和目标,强调各学科对这些因素的共同认识。管理从镇静中醒来的患者的护理能力是坚持护理点的必要条件;未来的研究应重点关注这样做的最佳方法。实施研究设计应使用理论和基于证据的SI决定因素,以弥合证据与实践之间的差距。西班牙文摘要:http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A178。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信