Current Issue : April-June Volume : 2023 Issue Number : 2 Articles : 5 Articles
Background: Endotracheal suctioning (ETS) is one of the most common invasive procedures performed by critical care nurses (CCNs) to remove accumulated pulmonary secretions, ensure airway patency for adequate ventilation and oxygenation as well as prevent atelectasis in intubated patients. Objectives: To assess the practice of CCNs in intensive care units (ICUs) before, during, and after performing the ETS procedure and identify factors affecting their practice. Methods: A cross-sectional and non-participant observational design was conducted in the ICUs of four hospitals in Hodeida city, Yemen. The data were collected using a 25-item observational checklist in the period from May to August 2019. Results: More than half (55%) of CCNs scored undesirable (< 50%) regarding their adherence to ETS practice guidelines while the rest scored moderate (50–75%), with none of showing desirable adherence (> 70%) to the guidelines. There was no significant association between gender, age, education level, or length of experience of CCNs in the ICUs and their practice during performance ETS procedures. However, training (p = 0.010) and receiving information about ETS (p = 0.028) significantly improved the CCNs’ practice. Conclusion: Most CCNs at the ICUs of Hodeida hospitals do not adhere to evidence-based practice guidelines when performing ETS procedures, possibly resulting in numerous adverse effects and complications for patients. CCNs receiving information and training show better ETS practice than do their counterparts. Therefore, it is necessary to provide the nursing staff with clear guidelines, continuous education and monitoring to improve their practices....
Background: Recent pandemics have provided important lessons to inform planning for public health emergencies. Despite these lessons, gaps in implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic are evident. Additionally, research to inform interventions to support the needs of front-line nurses during a prolonged pandemic are lacking. We aimed to gain an understanding of critical care nurses’ perspectives of the ongoing pandemic, including their opinions of their organization and governments response to the pandemic, to inform interventions to improve the response to the current and future pandemics. Methods: This sub-study is part of a cross-sectional online survey distributed to Canadian critical care nurses at two time points during the pandemic (March–May 2020; April–May 2021). We employed a qualitative descriptive design comprised of three open-ended questions to provide an opportunity for participants to share perspectives not specifically addressed in the main survey. Responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results: One hundred nine of the 168 (64.9%) participants in the second survey responded to the open-ended questions. While perspectives about effectiveness of both their organization’s and the government’s responses to the pandemic were mixed, most noted that inconsistent and unclear communication made it difficult to trust the information provided. Several participants who had worked during previous pandemics noted that their organization’s COVID-19 response failed to incorporate lessons from these past experiences. Many respondents reported high levels of burnout and moral distress that negatively affected both their professional and personal lives. Despite these experiences, several respondents noted that support from co-workers had helped them to cope with the stress and challenges. Conclusion: One year into the pandemic, critical care nurses’ lived experiences continue to reflect previously identified challenges and opportunities for improvement in pandemic preparedness and response. These findings suggest that lessons from the current and prior pandemics have been inadequately considered in the COVID-19 response. Incorporation of these perspectives into interventions to improve the health system response, and support the needs of critical care nurses is essential to fostering a resilient health workforce. Research to understand the experience of other front-line workers and to learn from more and less successful interventions, and leaders, is needed....
Background: Intensivists play an essential role in improving the outcomes of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The transition of ICU physician staffing from low-intensity ICUs (elective intensivist or no intensivist consultation) to high-intensity ICUs (mandatory intensivist consultation or a closed ICU) improves clinical outcomes. However, whether a transition from high-intensity to low-intensity ICU staffing affects ICU outcomes and quality of care remains unknown. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted to examine the impact of high- versus low-intensity staffing models on all-cause mortality in a suburban secondary community hospital with 400 general beds and 8 ICU beds. The ICU was switched from a high-intensity staffing model (high-former period) to low-intensity staffing in July 2019 (low-mid period) and then back to high-intensity staffing in March 2020 (high-latter period). Patients admitted from the emergency department, general ward, or operating room after emergency surgery were enrolled in these three periods and compared, balancing the predicted mortality and covariates of the patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality analyzed using hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards regression. An interrupted time-series analysis (ITSA) was also conducted to evaluate the effects of events (level change) and time. Results: There were 962 eligible admissions, of which 251, 213, and 498 occurred in the high-former, low-mid, and high-latter periods, respectively. In the matched group (n = 600), the all-cause mortality rate comparing the highformer period with the low-mid period showed an HR of 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56, 1.39; p = 0.58] and that comparing the high-latter period with the low-mid period showed an HR of 0.84 [95% CI, 0.54, 1.30; p = 0.43]. The result for comparison between the three periods was p = 0.80. ITSA showed level changes of 4.05% [95% CI, -13.1, 21.2; p = 0.63] when ICU staffing changed from the high-former to the low-mid period and 1.35% [95% CI, -13.8, 16.5; p = 0.86] when ICU staffing changed from the low-mid to the high-latter period. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality among the three ICU staffing periods. This study suggests that low-intensity ICU staffing might not worsen clinical outcomes in the ICU in a mediumsized community hospital. Multiple factors, including the presence of an intensivist, other medical staff, and practical guidelines, influence the prognosis of critically ill patients....
Background: Delirium is an underdiagnosed condition and this may be related, among other causes, to the incorrect use of assessment tools due to lack of knowledge about cognitive assessment and lack of training of the care team. The aim of this study was to investigate the difficulties encountered by the nursing team in the application of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) in patients on mechanical ventilation. Methods: This is descriptive study with a qualitative approach in a private tertiary hospital located in northeast Brazil. Data collection took place from July 2018 to January 2019. We included 32 nurses and used face-to-face semi-structured interviews. The recorded data were analysed using content analysis. This study followed the recommendations of the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). Results: We identified three major categories: lack of knowledge of professionals, subdivided into deficit in academic formation, difficulty in the differential diagnosis of delirium and delusion, and lack of knowledge about the steps of the CAM-ICU; difficulty in patient cooperation; and lack of adequate training to apply the CAM-ICU. Conclusion: Nurses have a deficit in academic formation on delirium and need adequate training for the correct and frequent use of the CAM-ICU....
Background: Sedative agents may variably impact the stress response. Dexmedetomidine is a sympatholytic alpha2-adrenergic agonist mainly used as a second-line sedative agent in mechanically ventilated patients. We hypothesised that early sedation with dexmedetomidine as the primary agent would result in a reduced stress response compared to usual sedatives in critically ill ventilated adults. Methods: This was a prospective sub-study nested within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of early sedation with dexmedetomidine versus usual care. The primary outcome was the mean group differences in plasma levels of stress response biomarkers measured over 5 days following randomisation. Other hormonal, biological and physiological parameters were collected. Subgroup analyses were planned for patients with proven or suspected sepsis. Results: One hundred and three patients were included in the final analysis. Baseline illness severity (APACHE II score), the proportion of patients receiving propofol and the median dose of propofol received were comparable between groups. More of the usual-care patients received midazolam (57.7% vs 33.3%; p = 0.01) and at higher dose (median (95% interquartile range) 0.46 [0.20–0.93] vs 0.14 [0.08–0.38] mg/kg/day; p < 0.01). The geometric mean (95% CI) plasma level of the stress hormones, adrenaline (0.32 [0.26–0.4] vs 0.38 [0.31–0.48]), noradrenaline (4.27 [3.12–5.85] vs 6.2 [4.6–8.5]), adrenocorticotropic hormone (17.1 [15.1–19.5] vs 18.1 [15.9–20.5]) and cortisol (515 [409–648] vs 618 [491–776)] did not differ between dexmedetomidine and usual-care groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in any other assayed biomarkers or physiological parameters Sensitivity analyses showed no effect of age or sepsis. Conclusions: Early sedation with dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative agent in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults resulted in comparable changes in physiological and blood-borne parameters associated with the stress-response as with usual-care sedation....
Loading....