Adoption of a sedation scoring system and sedation guideline in an intensive care unit

Aim. The paper presents a study assessing the rate of adoption of a sedation scoring system and sedation guideline. Background. Clinical practice guidelines including sedation guidelines have been shown to improve patient outcomes by standardizing care. In particular sedation guidelines have been shown to be beneficial for intensive care patients by reducing the duration of ventilation. Despite the acceptance that clinical practice guidelines are beneficial, adoption rates are rarely measured. Adoption data may reveal other factors which contribute to improved outcomes. Therefore, the usefulness of the guideline may be more appropriately assessed by collecting adoption data. Method. A quasi-experimental pre-intervention and postintervention quality improvement design was used. Adoption was operationalized as documentation of sedation score every 4 hours and use of the sedation and analgesic medications suggested in the guideline. Adoption data were collected from patients' charts on a random day of the month; all patients in the intensive care unit on that day were assigned an adoption category. Sedation scoring system adoption data were collected before implementation of a sedation guideline, which was implemented using an intensive information-giving strategy, and guideline adoption data were fed back to bedside nurses. After implementation of the guideline, adoption data were collected for both the sedation scoring system and the guideline. The data were collected in the years 2002-2004. Findings. The sedation scoring system was not used extensively in the pre-intervention phase of the study; however, this improved in the postintervention phase. The findings suggest that the sedation guideline was gradually adopted following implementation in the postintervention phase of the study. Field notes taken during the implementation of the sedation scoring system and the guideline reveal widespread acceptance of both. Conclusion. Measurement of adoption is a complex process. Appropriate operationalization contributes to greater accuracy. Further investigation is warranted to establish the intensity and extent of implementation required to positively affect patient outcomes.

The information specialist in the clinical team: Building expertise in evidence-based healthcare

The Clinician Development Program (CDP) is an initiative of Queensland Health’s Quality Improvement and Enhancement Program. At the Royal Brisbane & Royal Women's Hospital Health Service Districts, evidence-base practice (EBP) is an important CDP area in which several projects were carried out in 2002. This paper describes one such project. A medical librarian was invited to accompany the clinical team on morning rounds in the Medical Assessment & Planning Unit (MAPU). The librarian conducted information skills training in the ward and helped clinicians to answer questions directly related to patient care. Questions not answered during the round were followed-up, usually within 48 hours, and responses emailed to the consultant who led the rounds. At the project’s conclusion the librarian was invited to continue as a member of the MAPU clinical team, thus acknowledging the valuable role an information specialist can play in incorporating research evidence into patient care. Clinical librarianship (CL) creates a space, albeit a contentious one, for the health librarian at the bedside. This paper describes an Australian CL project and attempts to demystify the role of an information specialist in EBP. It also highlights some of the challenges facing librarians and clinicians attempting to embed EBP in clinical settings.