拔管顾问:新型拔管临床决策支持工具的实施与评估。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1177/08850666241291524
Brett N Hryciw, Natasha Hudek, Jamie C Brehaut, Christophe Herry, Nathan Scales, Emma Lee, Aimee J Sarti, Karen E A Burns, Andrew J E Seely
{"title":"拔管顾问:新型拔管临床决策支持工具的实施与评估。","authors":"Brett N Hryciw, Natasha Hudek, Jamie C Brehaut, Christophe Herry, Nathan Scales, Emma Lee, Aimee J Sarti, Karen E A Burns, Andrew J E Seely","doi":"10.1177/08850666241291524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Importance: Extubation Advisor (EA) is a novel software tool that generates a synoptic report for each Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) conducted to inform extubation decision-making. Objectives: To assess bedside EA implementation, perceptions of utility, and identify barriers and facilitators of use. Design, Setting and Participants: We conducted a phase I mixed-methods interventional study in three mixed intensive care unit (ICUs) in two academic hospitals. We interviewed critical care physicians (MDs) and respiratory therapists (RTs) regarding user-centered design principles and usability. Analysis: We evaluated our ability to consent participants (feasibility threshold 50%), capture complete data (threshold 90%), generate and review EA reports in real-time (thresholds 75% and 80%, respectively), and MD perception of tool usefulness (6-point Likert scale). We analyzed interview transcripts using inductive coding to identify facilitators and barriers to EA implementation and perceived benefit of tool use. Results: We enrolled 31 patients who underwent 70 SBTs. Although consent rates [31/31 (100%], complete data capture [68/68 (100%)], and EA report generation [68/70 (97.1%)] exceeded feasibility thresholds, reports were reviewed by MDs for [55/70 (78.6%)] SBTs. Mean MD usefulness score was 4.0/6. Based on feedback obtained from 36 interviews (15 MDs, 21 RTs), we revised the EA report twice and identified facilitators (ability to track patient progress, enhance extubation decision-making, and provide support in resource-limited settings) and barriers (resource constraints, need for education) to tool implementation. Half of respondents (9 MDs, 9 RTs; combined 50%) perceived definite or potential benefit to EA tool use. Conclusion: This is the first study of a waveform-based variability-derived, predictive clinical decision support tool evaluated in adult ICUs. Our findings support the feasibility of integrating the EA tool into bedside workflow. Clinical trials are needed to assess the utility of the EA tool in practice and its impact on extubation decision-making and outcomes.Trial RegistrationNCT04708509.</p>","PeriodicalId":16307,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"418-426"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"<i>Extubation Advisor</i>: Implementation and Evaluation of A Novel Extubation Clinical Decision Support Tool.\",\"authors\":\"Brett N Hryciw, Natasha Hudek, Jamie C Brehaut, Christophe Herry, Nathan Scales, Emma Lee, Aimee J Sarti, Karen E A Burns, Andrew J E Seely\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08850666241291524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Importance: Extubation Advisor (EA) is a novel software tool that generates a synoptic report for each Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) conducted to inform extubation decision-making. Objectives: To assess bedside EA implementation, perceptions of utility, and identify barriers and facilitators of use. Design, Setting and Participants: We conducted a phase I mixed-methods interventional study in three mixed intensive care unit (ICUs) in two academic hospitals. We interviewed critical care physicians (MDs) and respiratory therapists (RTs) regarding user-centered design principles and usability. Analysis: We evaluated our ability to consent participants (feasibility threshold 50%), capture complete data (threshold 90%), generate and review EA reports in real-time (thresholds 75% and 80%, respectively), and MD perception of tool usefulness (6-point Likert scale). We analyzed interview transcripts using inductive coding to identify facilitators and barriers to EA implementation and perceived benefit of tool use. Results: We enrolled 31 patients who underwent 70 SBTs. Although consent rates [31/31 (100%], complete data capture [68/68 (100%)], and EA report generation [68/70 (97.1%)] exceeded feasibility thresholds, reports were reviewed by MDs for [55/70 (78.6%)] SBTs. Mean MD usefulness score was 4.0/6. Based on feedback obtained from 36 interviews (15 MDs, 21 RTs), we revised the EA report twice and identified facilitators (ability to track patient progress, enhance extubation decision-making, and provide support in resource-limited settings) and barriers (resource constraints, need for education) to tool implementation. Half of respondents (9 MDs, 9 RTs; combined 50%) perceived definite or potential benefit to EA tool use. Conclusion: This is the first study of a waveform-based variability-derived, predictive clinical decision support tool evaluated in adult ICUs. Our findings support the feasibility of integrating the EA tool into bedside workflow. Clinical trials are needed to assess the utility of the EA tool in practice and its impact on extubation decision-making and outcomes.Trial RegistrationNCT04708509.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"418-426\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"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/10.1177/08850666241291524\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666241291524","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:拔管顾问(EA)是一种新型软件工具,可为每次进行的自主呼吸试验(SBT)生成综合报告,为拔管决策提供信息:评估床旁 EA 的实施情况、对其效用的看法,并确定使用的障碍和促进因素:我们在两家学术医院的三个混合重症监护病房(ICU)开展了一项 I 期混合方法干预研究。我们就以用户为中心的设计原则和可用性采访了重症监护医生(MD)和呼吸治疗师(RT):我们评估了同意参与者的能力(可行性阈值为 50%)、捕获完整数据的能力(阈值为 90%)、实时生成和审查 EA 报告的能力(阈值分别为 75% 和 80%),以及医学博士对工具实用性的看法(6 点李克特量表)。我们使用归纳编码法对访谈记录进行了分析,以确定 EA 实施的促进因素和障碍以及工具使用的感知益处:我们招募了 31 名患者,他们接受了 70 次 SBT。虽然同意率[31/31 (100%)]、完整数据采集率[68/68 (100%)]和 EA 报告生成率[68/70 (97.1%)]均超过了可行性阈值,但医学博士对[55/70 (78.6%)]次 SBT 的报告进行了审查。医学博士的平均实用性评分为 4.0/6。根据 36 位受访者(15 位医学博士、21 位 RT)的反馈意见,我们对 EA 报告进行了两次修订,并确定了工具实施的促进因素(跟踪患者进展的能力、加强拔管决策的能力以及在资源有限的环境中提供支持的能力)和障碍(资源限制、教育需求)。半数受访者(9 位医学博士、9 位 RT;合计 50%)认为使用 EA 工具有明确或潜在的益处:这是第一项在成人重症监护病房评估基于波形的变异性预测性临床决策支持工具的研究。我们的研究结果支持将 EA 工具纳入床旁工作流程的可行性。需要进行临床试验来评估 EA 工具在实践中的实用性及其对拔管决策和结果的影响:试验注册:NCT04708509。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extubation Advisor: Implementation and Evaluation of A Novel Extubation Clinical Decision Support Tool.

Importance: Extubation Advisor (EA) is a novel software tool that generates a synoptic report for each Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) conducted to inform extubation decision-making. Objectives: To assess bedside EA implementation, perceptions of utility, and identify barriers and facilitators of use. Design, Setting and Participants: We conducted a phase I mixed-methods interventional study in three mixed intensive care unit (ICUs) in two academic hospitals. We interviewed critical care physicians (MDs) and respiratory therapists (RTs) regarding user-centered design principles and usability. Analysis: We evaluated our ability to consent participants (feasibility threshold 50%), capture complete data (threshold 90%), generate and review EA reports in real-time (thresholds 75% and 80%, respectively), and MD perception of tool usefulness (6-point Likert scale). We analyzed interview transcripts using inductive coding to identify facilitators and barriers to EA implementation and perceived benefit of tool use. Results: We enrolled 31 patients who underwent 70 SBTs. Although consent rates [31/31 (100%], complete data capture [68/68 (100%)], and EA report generation [68/70 (97.1%)] exceeded feasibility thresholds, reports were reviewed by MDs for [55/70 (78.6%)] SBTs. Mean MD usefulness score was 4.0/6. Based on feedback obtained from 36 interviews (15 MDs, 21 RTs), we revised the EA report twice and identified facilitators (ability to track patient progress, enhance extubation decision-making, and provide support in resource-limited settings) and barriers (resource constraints, need for education) to tool implementation. Half of respondents (9 MDs, 9 RTs; combined 50%) perceived definite or potential benefit to EA tool use. Conclusion: This is the first study of a waveform-based variability-derived, predictive clinical decision support tool evaluated in adult ICUs. Our findings support the feasibility of integrating the EA tool into bedside workflow. Clinical trials are needed to assess the utility of the EA tool in practice and its impact on extubation decision-making and outcomes.Trial RegistrationNCT04708509.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信