Sedation Experiences of Pediatric Intensive Care Nurses: Exploring PICU Nurse Perspectives on Sedative Management and Communication.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Amanda R Kolmar, Lindsey Kerley, M Grace Melliere, Brian M Fuller
{"title":"Sedation Experiences of Pediatric Intensive Care Nurses: Exploring PICU Nurse Perspectives on Sedative Management and Communication.","authors":"Amanda R Kolmar, Lindsey Kerley, M Grace Melliere, Brian M Fuller","doi":"10.1177/08850666241266475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> This study's purpose is to better understand pediatric intensive care nursing perspectives on sedative management as a precursor to improving aspects of sedation assessment, titration, and communication. <b>Methods/Design:</b> We queried nurses in the pediatric intensive care unit at a 40+ bed quaternary care using an electronic survey about their experiences with sedation management. Data was collected using REDCap and statistical analyses were performed to assess for differences between experience levels in areas. <b>Results:</b> Seventy nurses responded with 42% response rate. More than 95% were comfortable calculating sedation and delirium scores. Those with less than 5 years' experience were significantly more likely to consider sedation scores helpful (<i>P</i> = .04) and also significant more likely to agree that delirium scores are used effectively (<i>P</i> = .01). Eighty-eight percent of respondents were comfortable raising concerns about sedation to the multidisciplinary team, but those with less than 5 years' experience were significantly less likely to express concerns to attending (<i>P</i> = .001). <b>Conclusion:</b> Newer nurses are more inclined to support use of standardized scoring systems for sedation and delirium, but less comfortable approaching attending clinicians with their concerns. Intensive care teams should pay careful attention to team dynamics, particularly as they apply to sedative management and work to improve communication, collaboration, and educational interventions to improve patient care. Further work understanding nursing perspectives and further attempts to improve interprofessional communication seems a wise investment and could obviate barriers that may exist.</p>","PeriodicalId":16307,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666241266475","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study's purpose is to better understand pediatric intensive care nursing perspectives on sedative management as a precursor to improving aspects of sedation assessment, titration, and communication. Methods/Design: We queried nurses in the pediatric intensive care unit at a 40+ bed quaternary care using an electronic survey about their experiences with sedation management. Data was collected using REDCap and statistical analyses were performed to assess for differences between experience levels in areas. Results: Seventy nurses responded with 42% response rate. More than 95% were comfortable calculating sedation and delirium scores. Those with less than 5 years' experience were significantly more likely to consider sedation scores helpful (P = .04) and also significant more likely to agree that delirium scores are used effectively (P = .01). Eighty-eight percent of respondents were comfortable raising concerns about sedation to the multidisciplinary team, but those with less than 5 years' experience were significantly less likely to express concerns to attending (P = .001). Conclusion: Newer nurses are more inclined to support use of standardized scoring systems for sedation and delirium, but less comfortable approaching attending clinicians with their concerns. Intensive care teams should pay careful attention to team dynamics, particularly as they apply to sedative management and work to improve communication, collaboration, and educational interventions to improve patient care. Further work understanding nursing perspectives and further attempts to improve interprofessional communication seems a wise investment and could obviate barriers that may exist.

儿科重症监护护士的镇静经验:探索重症监护病房护士对镇静剂管理和沟通的看法。
研究目的本研究旨在更好地了解儿科重症监护护理人员对镇静剂管理的看法,从而改进镇静剂评估、滴定和沟通等方面的工作。方法/设计:我们通过电子调查询问了一家拥有 40 多张病床的四级医院儿科重症监护病房的护士们在镇静剂管理方面的经验。使用 REDCap 收集数据并进行统计分析,以评估各领域经验水平之间的差异。结果:70 名护士做出了回复,回复率为 42%。95%以上的护士能够自如地计算镇静和谵妄评分。工作经验少于 5 年的护士更倾向于认为镇静评分有帮助(P = .04),也更倾向于认为谵妄评分得到了有效使用(P = .01)。88%的受访者愿意向多学科团队提出有关镇静的疑虑,但工作经验少于 5 年的受访者向主治医生表达疑虑的可能性明显较低(P = .001)。结论:新护士更倾向于支持使用镇静和谵妄标准化评分系统,但不太愿意向主治临床医生表达自己的担忧。重症监护团队应仔细关注团队动态,尤其是在镇静剂管理方面,并努力改善沟通、协作和教育干预,以改善患者护理。进一步了解护理人员的观点和进一步尝试改善跨专业沟通似乎是一项明智的投资,可以消除可能存在的障碍。
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
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JIC) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal offering medical and surgical clinicians in adult and pediatric intensive care state-of-the-art, broad-based analytic reviews and updates, original articles, reports of large clinical series, techniques and procedures, topic-specific electronic resources, book reviews, and editorials on all aspects of intensive/critical/coronary care.
×
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