Physicians' attitudes toward and knowledge of the pulmonary artery catheter: Society of Critical Care Medicine membership survey.

New horizons (Baltimore, Md.) Pub Date : 1997-08-01
S J Trottier, R W Taylor
{"title":"Physicians' attitudes toward and knowledge of the pulmonary artery catheter: Society of Critical Care Medicine membership survey.","authors":"S J Trottier,&nbsp;R W Taylor","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To survey physicians' attitudes toward the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) and to assess physicians' knowledge of pulmonary artery catheterization.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Mail survey/examination.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Physician members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":79357,"journal":{"name":"New horizons (Baltimore, Md.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New horizons (Baltimore, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Objective: To survey physicians' attitudes toward the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) and to assess physicians' knowledge of pulmonary artery catheterization.

Design: Mail survey/examination.

Participants: Physician members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine in the United States.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

医师对肺动脉导管的态度和知识:重症医学会会员调查。
目的:了解医师对肺动脉导管(PAC)的态度,评价医师对肺动脉导管置入术的知识。设计:邮件调查/检查。参与者:美国重症医学学会医师会员。方法:一份包含51个问题的两部分调查,由一家独立的研究公司邮寄给美国重症医学会医师会员。参与者被要求在无人协助的情况下回答问题,并在一个月内将调查问卷交回。前20个问题调查了医生对PAC的态度。其余31个选择题测试了医生对PAC的知识及其使用。多项选择题来自先前的一项研究,该研究评估了医生对肺动脉导管置入的知识。结果:1996年10月邮寄了5000份调查问卷;1996年11月,共有1095份调查返回,回报率为22%。调查结果很重要,95%的受访者认为暂停使用PAC是不合理的,75%的受访者赞成前瞻性、随机、对照试验,包括肺动脉导管置入。多项选择题的平均测试分数为25.6(82.6%),标准偏差为+/- 3.46,范围为3至31(10%-100%)。结论:本次邮件调查/检查的结果反映了回应的美国重症医学学会医师成员对PAC的当前态度和知识。大多数受访者赞成进行前瞻性、随机、对照试验;百分之九十五的答复者认为现时没有理由暂停进一步使用公共账目委员会。与其呼吁暂停这种做法,还不如呼吁制定和维持涉及公共事务委员会的教育、资格认证和持续质量改进政策。
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
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