Decisional responsibility for mechanical ventilation and weaning: an international survey

Introduction: Optimal management of mechanical ventilation and weaning requires dynamic and collaborative decision making to minimize complications and avoid delays in the transition to extubation. In the absence of collaboration, ventilation decision making may be fragmented, inconsistent, and delayed. Our objective was to describe the professional group with responsibility for key ventilation and weaning decisions and to examine organizational characteristics associated with nurse involvement.

Methods: A multi-center, cross-sectional, self-administered survey was sent to nurse managers of adult intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands and United Kingdom (UK). We summarized data as proportions (95% confidence intervals (CIs)) and calculated odds ratios (OR) to examine ICU organizational variables associated with collaborative decision making.

Results: Response rates ranged from 39% (UK) to 92% (Switzerland), providing surveys from 586 ICUs. Interprofessional collaboration (nurses and physicians) was the most common approach to initial selection of ventilator settings (63% (95% CI 59 to 66)), determination of extubation readiness (71% (67 to 75)), weaning method (73% (69 to 76)), recognition of weaning failure (84% (81 to 87)) and weaning readiness (85% (82 to 87)), and titration of ventilator settings (88% (86 to 91)). A nurse-to-patient ratio other than 1:1 was associated with decreased interprofessional collaboration during titration of ventilator settings (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6), weaning method (0.4 (0.2 to 0.9)), determination of extubation readiness (0.5 (0.2 to 0.9)) and weaning failure (0.4 (0.1 to 1.0)). Use of a weaning protocol was associated with increased collaborative decision making for determining weaning (1.8 (1.0 to 3.3)) and extubation readiness (1.9 (1.2 to 3.0)), and weaning method (1.8 (1.1 to 3.0)). Country of ICU location influenced the profile of responsibility for all decisions. Automated weaning modes were used in 55% of ICUs.

Conclusions: Collaborative decision making for ventilation and weaning was employed in most ICUs in all countries although this was influenced by nurse-to-patient ratio, presence of a protocol, and varied across countries. Potential clinical implications of a lack of collaboration include delayed adaptation of ventilation to changing physiological parameters, and delayed recognition of weaning and extubation readiness resulting in unnecessary prolongation of ventilation.

DESCRIBING SLEEP AND SEDATION PRACTICES IN THE ICU: A MULTINATIONAL SURVEY

Introduction Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) with the potential for serious consequences and long-term effects on health outcomes and patient morbidity.
Objectives Our aim was to describe sleep management and sedation practices of adult ICUs in ten countries and to evaluate roles and responsibilities of the ICU staff in relation to key sleep and sedation decisions.
Methods A multicenter, self-administered survey sent to nurse managers of adult ICUs across 10 countries. The questionnaire comprised four domains: sleep characteristics of the critically ill; sleep and sedation practices; non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions used to improve sleep; and the autonomy and influence of nurses on sleeping practices in the ICU.
Results Overall response rate was 66% (range 32% UK to 100% Cyprus), providing data from 522 ICUs. In all countries, the most frequent patient characteristic perceived to identify sleep was lying quietly with closed eyes (N=409, 78%) (range 92% Denmark to 36% Italy). The most commonly used sedation scale was the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) (N=220, 42%) (range 81% UK to 0% Denmark, Cyprus where most ICUs used the Ramsay score). In most ICUs, selection of sleep medication (N=265, 51%) and assessment of effect (N=309, 59%) was performed by physicians and nurses based on collaborative discussion. In a minority of ICUs (N=161, 31%), decisions and assessments were made by physicians alone. The most commonly used (in all countries) non-pharmacological intervention to promote sleep was reducing ICU staff noise (N=473, 91%) (range 100% Denmark, Norway to 78% Canada). Only 95 ICUs (18%) used earplugs on a frequent basis (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark to 57% Sweden). Propofol was the drug used most commonly for sedation (N=359, 69%) (range 96% Sweden to 29% Canada). Chloral hydrate was used by only 63 (12%) ICUs (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy to 56% Germany). Sedation scales were used on a routine basis by 77% of the 522 ICUs. Participants scored nursing autonomy for sleep and sedation management as moderate; median score of 5 (scale of 0 to 10), range 7 (Canada, Greece, Sweden) to 4 (Norway, Poland). Nursing influence on sleep and sedation decisions was perceived considerable; median score 8, range 9 (Denmark) to 5 (Poland).
Conclusions We found considerable across country variation in sleep promotion and sedation management practices though most have adopted a sedation scale as recommended in professional society guidelines. Most ICUs in all countries used a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to promote sleep. Most units reported inter-professional decision-making with nurses perceived to have substantial influence on sleep/sedation decisions.

Learning, development, and support needs of community palliative care clinical nurse specialists

Background: The palliative care clinical nurse specialist (PC-CNS) is a core member of the specialist palliative care team. According to professional policy, the role has four specific components: clinical practice, education, research, and leadership and management. Little is known about how to support staff in this role. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore what learning, development, and support PC-CNSs in one hospice need to enable them to fulfil all components of their role. Design: Using a descriptive exploratory approach, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of community PC-CNSs from a hospice in Northern Ireland. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. Findings: Seventeen interviews were analysed and three themes identified: influence of organisational culture, influence of the individual, and learning and development solutions. Conclusions: Participants reported that the PC-CNS role was stressful. They identified that the organisational culture and indeed individuals themselves influenced the learning and development support available to help them fulfil the four components of the role. Working relationships and stability within teams affected how supported individuals felt and had implications for managers in meeting the needs of staff while balancing the needs of the service.

Establishing a nurse practitioner collaborative: evolution, development, and outcomes

The first Australian palliative care nurse practitioner (NP) was endorsed in 2003. In 2009 the Victoria Department of Health funded the development of the Victorian Palliative Care Nurse Practitioner Collaborative (VPCNPC). Its aim was to promote the NP role, develop resources, and provide education and mentorship to NPs, nurse practitioner candidates (NPCs), and health service managers. Four key objectives were developed: identify the demographic profile of palliative care NPCs in Victoria; develop an education curriculum and practical resources to support the training and education of palliative care NPCs and NPs; provide mentorship to NPs, NPCs, and service managers; and ensure effective communication with all key stakeholders. An NPC survey was also conducted to explore NPC demographics, models of care, the hours of study required for the role, the mentoring process, and education needs. This paper reports on the establishment of the VPCNPC, the steps taken to achieve its objectives, and the results of the survey. The NP role in palliative care in Australia continues to evolve, and the VPCNPC provides a structure and resources to clearly articulate the benefits of the role to nursing and clinical services. The advanced clinical practice role of the nurse practitioner (NP) has been well established in North America for several decades and across a range of specialties (Ryan-Woolley et al, 2007; Poghosyan et al, 2012). The NP role in Australia and the UK is a relatively new initiative that commenced in the early 2000s (Gardner et al, 2009). There are over 1000 NPs across all states and territories of Australia, of whom approximately 130 work in the state of Victoria (Victorian Government Health Information, 2012). Australian NPs work across a range of specialties, including palliative, emergency, older person, renal, cardiac, respiratory, and mental health care. There has been increasing focus nationally and internationally on developing academic programmes specifically for nurses working toward NP status (Gardner et al, 2006). There has been less emphasis on identifying the comprehensive clinical support requirements for NPs and NP candidates (NPCs) to ensure they meet all registration requirements to achieve and/or maintain endorsement, or on articulating the ongoing requirements for NPs once endorsed. Historically in Australia there has been a lack of clarity and limited published evidence on the benefits of the NP role for patients, carers, and health services (Quaglietti et al, 2004; Gardner and Gardner, 2005; Bookbinder et al, 2011; Dyar et al, 2012). An NP is considered to be at the apex of clinical nursing practice. The NP role typically entails comprehensively assessing and managing patients, prescribing medicines, making direct referrals to other specialists and services, and ordering diagnostic investigations (Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2009). All NPs in Australia are required to meet the following generic criteria: be a registered nurse, have completed a Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia approved postgraduate university Master's (nurse practitioner) degree programme, and be able to demonstrate a minimum of 3 years' experience in an advanced practice role (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, 2011). An NPC in Victoria is a registered nurse employed by a service or organisation to work toward meeting the academic and clinical requirements for national endorsement as an NP. During the period of candidacy, which is of variable duration, NPCs consolidate their competence to work at the advanced practice level of an NP. The candidacy period is a process of learning the new role while engaging with mentors (medical and nursing) and accessing other learning opportunities both within and outside one's organisation to meet the educational requirements. Integral to the NP role is the development of a model of care that is responsive to identified service delivery gaps that can be addressed by the skills, knowledge, and expertise of an NP. These are unique to each individual service. The practice of an Australian NP is guided by national standards (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia 2014). It is defined by four overarching standards: clinical, education, research, and leadership. Following the initial endorsement of four Victorian palliative care NPs in 2005, there was a lull in recruitment. The Victoria Department of Health (DH) recognised the potential benefits of NPs for health services, and in 2008 it provided funding for Victorian public health services to scope palliative care NP models of care that could enhance service delivery and patient outcomes. The scoping strategy was effective and led to the appointment of 16 palliative care nurses to NPC positions over the ensuing 3 years. The NPCs work across a broad range of care settings, including inpatient, community, and outpatient in metropolitan, regional, and rural areas of Victoria. At the same time, the DH also funded the Centre for Palliative Care to establish the Victorian Palliative Care Nurse Practitioner Collaborative (VPCNPC) to support the NPs and NPCs. The Centre is a state-wide service that is part of St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne and a collaborative Centre of the University of Melbourne. Its primary function is to provide training and conduct research in palliative care. The purpose of the VPCNPC was to provide support and mentorship and develop resources targeted at palliative care NPs, NPCs, and health service managers. Membership of the VPCNPC is open to all NPs, NPCs, health service managers, and nurses interested in the NP role. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of the VPCNPC, its actions, and the outcomes of these actions.

Care home managers’ knowledge of palliative care: a Northern Irish study

The impact of nurse-directed protocolised-weaning from mechanical ventilation on nursing practice: A quasi-experimental study

Background:
Internationally, nurse-directed protocolised-weaning has been evaluated by measuring its impact on patient outcomes. The impact on nurses’ views and perceptions has been largely ignored.

Aim:
To determine the change in intensive care nurses’ perceptions, satisfaction, knowledge and attitudes following the introduction of nurse-directed weaning. Additionally, views were obtained on how useful protocolised-weaning was to practice.

Methods:
The sample comprised nurses working in general intensive care units in three university-affiliated hospitals. Nurse-directed protocolised-weaning was implemented in one unit (intervention group); two ICUs continued with usual doctor-led practice (control group). Nurses’ perceptions, satisfaction, knowledge and attitudes were measured by self-completed questionnaires before (Phase I) and after the implementation of nurse-directed weaning (Phase II) in all units.

Results:
Response rates were 79% (n=140n=140) for Phase 1 and 62% (n=132n=132) for Phase II. Regression-based analyses showed that changes from Phase I to Phase II were not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Sixty-nine nurses responded to both Phase I and II questionnaires. In the intervention group, these nurses scored their mean perceived level of knowledge higher in Phase II (6.39 vs 7.17, p=0.01p=0.01). In the control group, role perception (4.41 vs 4.22, p=0.01p=0.01) was lower and, perceived knowledge (6.03 vs 6.63, p=0.04p=0.04), awareness of weaning plans (6.09 vs 7.06, p=0.01p=0.01) and satisfaction with communication (5.28 vs 6.19, p=0.01p=0.01) were higher in Phase II. The intervention group found protocolised weaning useful in their practice (75%): this was scored significantly higher by junior and senior nurses than middle grade nurses (p=0.02p=0.02).

Conclusion

We conclude that nurse-directed protocolised-weaning had no effect on nurses’ views and perceptions due to the high level of satisfaction which encouraged nurses’ participation in weaning throughout. Control group changes are attributed to a ‘reactive effect’ from being study participants. Weaning protocols provide a uniform method of weaning practice and are particularly beneficial in providing safe guidance for junior staff.