Using Implementation Science to Assess Barriers to Agreement on Sedation Goal Setting and Assessment.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1097/PCC.0000000000003643
Youyang Yang, Kate Becla, Heather Kennedy, Katrina Eder, Alireza Akhondi-Asl, Nilesh M Mehta, Alon Geva
{"title":"Using Implementation Science to Assess Barriers to Agreement on Sedation Goal Setting and Assessment.","authors":"Youyang Yang, Kate Becla, Heather Kennedy, Katrina Eder, Alireza Akhondi-Asl, Nilesh M Mehta, Alon Geva","doi":"10.1097/PCC.0000000000003643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Sedation assessment and goal setting using a validated assessment tool are key components of the ICU Liberation bundle. Appropriate integration of these bundle elements into daily practice remains challenging. Understanding barriers is an important step toward implementation of these best practice bundle elements.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Two-phased explanatory mixed methods assessment carried out 2022-2023.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Forty-bed quaternary PICU.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Bedside nurses and prescribers caring for mechanically ventilated patients on sedative infusions.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Forty-one nurses and 32 prescribers participated in the phase 1 pre-education assessments (2022). We identified lack of correlation between the providers' stated State Behavioral Scale (SBS) numerical goal and descriptive goal and hypothesized that this discrepancy was either due to a knowledge gap or disagreement on sedation goals. To investigate this hypothesis, we performed a phase 2 assessment (2022-2023), starting with a multipronged educational activity, followed by a repeat survey that included a qualitative interview. One hundred ninety nurses and 45 prescribers received the educational activity. Twenty-eight nurses and 22 prescribers participated in the phase 2 assessments with the qualitative interview. Although correlation of the sedation goal between providers improved, it remained poor. Subsequent qualitative interview data indicated that the reasons for persistent disagreement in the sedation goal for a given patient were related to individual providers' beliefs and attitudes toward sedation, rather than lack of understanding about using the SBS to set a target sedation goal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Barriers to setting and managing daily patient sedation goal in the PICU extend beyond providers' knowledge gaps. An improved understanding of underlying barriers is essential for successful implementation of evidence-based sedation guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":19760,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","volume":"26 1","pages":"e51-e61"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000003643","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Sedation assessment and goal setting using a validated assessment tool are key components of the ICU Liberation bundle. Appropriate integration of these bundle elements into daily practice remains challenging. Understanding barriers is an important step toward implementation of these best practice bundle elements.

Design: Two-phased explanatory mixed methods assessment carried out 2022-2023.

Setting: Forty-bed quaternary PICU.

Subjects: Bedside nurses and prescribers caring for mechanically ventilated patients on sedative infusions.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Forty-one nurses and 32 prescribers participated in the phase 1 pre-education assessments (2022). We identified lack of correlation between the providers' stated State Behavioral Scale (SBS) numerical goal and descriptive goal and hypothesized that this discrepancy was either due to a knowledge gap or disagreement on sedation goals. To investigate this hypothesis, we performed a phase 2 assessment (2022-2023), starting with a multipronged educational activity, followed by a repeat survey that included a qualitative interview. One hundred ninety nurses and 45 prescribers received the educational activity. Twenty-eight nurses and 22 prescribers participated in the phase 2 assessments with the qualitative interview. Although correlation of the sedation goal between providers improved, it remained poor. Subsequent qualitative interview data indicated that the reasons for persistent disagreement in the sedation goal for a given patient were related to individual providers' beliefs and attitudes toward sedation, rather than lack of understanding about using the SBS to set a target sedation goal.

Conclusions: Barriers to setting and managing daily patient sedation goal in the PICU extend beyond providers' knowledge gaps. An improved understanding of underlying barriers is essential for successful implementation of evidence-based sedation guidelines.

应用实施科学评估镇静目标设定与评估达成一致的障碍。
目的:使用有效的评估工具进行镇静评估和目标设定是ICU解放包的关键组成部分。将这些组合元素适当地整合到日常实践中仍然具有挑战性。理解障碍是实现这些最佳实践包元素的重要一步。设计:2022-2023年进行两阶段解释性混合方法评估。环境:40张床位的四级PICU。研究对象:护理机械通气患者的床边护士和开处方者。干预措施:没有。测量结果及主要结果:41名护士和32名开处方者参加了第一阶段的学前教育评估(2022年)。我们发现了提供者陈述的状态行为量表(SBS)数值目标和描述性目标之间缺乏相关性,并假设这种差异是由于知识差距或镇静目标的分歧。为了调查这一假设,我们进行了第二阶段评估(2022-2023),从多管齐下的教育活动开始,然后是包括定性访谈在内的重复调查。190名护士和45名开处方者参加了教育活动。采用定性访谈法对28名护士和22名开处方者进行第二阶段评估。虽然各提供者之间镇静目标的相关性有所提高,但仍然较差。随后的定性访谈数据表明,对特定患者的镇静目标持续存在分歧的原因与个体提供者对镇静的信念和态度有关,而不是缺乏对使用SBS设定目标镇静目标的理解。结论:PICU设置和管理患者每日镇静目标的障碍超出了提供者的知识差距。提高对潜在障碍的理解对于成功实施循证镇静指南至关重要。
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
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
14.60%
发文量
991
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Critical Care Medicine is written for the entire critical care team: pediatricians, neonatologists, respiratory therapists, nurses, and others who deal with pediatric patients who are critically ill or injured. International in scope, with editorial board members and contributors from around the world, the Journal includes a full range of scientific content, including clinical articles, scientific investigations, solicited reviews, and abstracts from pediatric critical care meetings. Additionally, the Journal includes abstracts of selected articles published in Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish translations - making news of advances in the field available to pediatric and neonatal intensive care practitioners worldwide.
×
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