The effect of an algorithm-based sedation guideline on the duration of mechanical ventilation in an Australian intensive care unit

To examine the effect of an algorithm-based sedation guideline developed in a North American intensive care unit (ICU) on the duration of mechanical ventilation of patients in an Australian ICU. The intervention was tested in a pre-intervention, post-intervention comparative investigation in a 14-bed adult intensive care unit. Adult mechanically ventilated patients were selected consecutively (n =322) The pre-intervention and post-intervention groups were similar except for a higher number of patients with a neurological diagnosis in the pre-intervention group. An algorithm-based sedation guideline including a sedation scale was introduced using a multifaceted implementation strategy. The median duration of ventilation was 5.6 days in the post-intervention group, compared with 4.8 days for the pre-intervention group (P = 0.99). The length of stay was 8.2 days in the post-intervention group versus 7.1 days in the pre-intervention group (P = 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences for the other secondary outcomes, including the score on the Experience of Treatment in ICU 7 item questionnaire, number of tracheostomies and number of self-extubations. Records of compliance to recording the sedation score during both phases revealed that patients were slightly more deeply sedated when the guideline was used. The use of the algorithm-based sedation guideline did not reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in the setting of this study.

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.