Understanding adherence and deviations in potassium replacement protocols: A mixed method study.

Kylie O'Neill, Jason Meyer, Elizabeth Manias, Gordon Laurie, Stewart Mealing, Kellie Sosnowski, Belinda Badman, Melissa J Bloomer
{"title":"Understanding adherence and deviations in potassium replacement protocols: A mixed method study.","authors":"Kylie O'Neill, Jason Meyer, Elizabeth Manias, Gordon Laurie, Stewart Mealing, Kellie Sosnowski, Belinda Badman, Melissa J Bloomer","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Potassium replacement protocols are commonly used in ICUs to standardise replacement and minimise harm. Yet, there is variability in potassium replacement practices.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>(i) To examine relationships between potassium levels, potassium administration, and the potassium replacement protocol; and (ii) to explore factors influencing potassium replacement decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An exploratory mixed methods approach using retrospective audit and interviews was undertaken. Clinical data from two ICUs were extracted about potassium results, potassium administration and other related data from the first 72 h of ICU admission, for all patients admitted between January 2015 and December 2022. Critical care nurses were interviewed between January and March 2024, with interviews professionally transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the sample of N = 10,613 patients, n = 132,507 potassium results were analysed. Potassium replacement was indicated for 39.7 % (n = 52,592) of potassium results. When replacement was indicated, potassium was administered within 2 h in 59.9 % (n = 31,508) of cases. Interviews with critical care nurses (n = 21) lasted 5-28 min (mean 12 min). Interview participants indicated that potassium replacement decisions were influenced by the patient's history and current condition, and colleague consultation. There was little concern over potential risks associated with potassium replacement. Greater clarity around the purpose and compulsoriness of potassium replacement protocols was desired.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings offer valuable insights into the intricacies of protocolised potassium replacement adherence and deviations across two ICU settings. Autonomy and interprofessional collaboration emerged as a key factor, with nurses exercising decision-making ability underpinned by patient specific considerations, assessment, and clinical judgement.</p><p><strong>Implications for clinical practice: </strong>When protocols are used to guide potassium replacement and other electrolytes, clear guidance as to the compulsoriness of the protocol is needed. Alternately, with safety a priority, when and how clinicians may use their clinical judgement and discretion in potassium replacement must also be explicit.</p>","PeriodicalId":94043,"journal":{"name":"Intensive & critical care nursing","volume":" ","pages":"104013"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive & critical care nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Potassium replacement protocols are commonly used in ICUs to standardise replacement and minimise harm. Yet, there is variability in potassium replacement practices.

Aims: (i) To examine relationships between potassium levels, potassium administration, and the potassium replacement protocol; and (ii) to explore factors influencing potassium replacement decision-making.

Methods: An exploratory mixed methods approach using retrospective audit and interviews was undertaken. Clinical data from two ICUs were extracted about potassium results, potassium administration and other related data from the first 72 h of ICU admission, for all patients admitted between January 2015 and December 2022. Critical care nurses were interviewed between January and March 2024, with interviews professionally transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis.

Results: From the sample of N = 10,613 patients, n = 132,507 potassium results were analysed. Potassium replacement was indicated for 39.7 % (n = 52,592) of potassium results. When replacement was indicated, potassium was administered within 2 h in 59.9 % (n = 31,508) of cases. Interviews with critical care nurses (n = 21) lasted 5-28 min (mean 12 min). Interview participants indicated that potassium replacement decisions were influenced by the patient's history and current condition, and colleague consultation. There was little concern over potential risks associated with potassium replacement. Greater clarity around the purpose and compulsoriness of potassium replacement protocols was desired.

Conclusion: These findings offer valuable insights into the intricacies of protocolised potassium replacement adherence and deviations across two ICU settings. Autonomy and interprofessional collaboration emerged as a key factor, with nurses exercising decision-making ability underpinned by patient specific considerations, assessment, and clinical judgement.

Implications for clinical practice: When protocols are used to guide potassium replacement and other electrolytes, clear guidance as to the compulsoriness of the protocol is needed. Alternately, with safety a priority, when and how clinicians may use their clinical judgement and discretion in potassium replacement must also be explicit.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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