Use of invasive mechanical ventilation in Australian emergency departments

Duration of Mechanical Ventilation in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Due to hospital crowding, mechanically ventilated patients are increasingly spending hours boarding in emergency departments (ED) before intensive care unit (ICU) admission. This study aims to evaluate the association between time ventilated in the ED and in-hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

This was a multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients ventilated in the ED, conducted at three academic Level I Trauma Centers from July 2011 to March 2013. All consecutive adult patients on invasive mechanical ventilation were eligible for enrollment. We performed a Cox regression to assess for a mortality effect for mechanically ventilated patients with each hour of increasing LOS in the ED and multivariable regression analyses to assess for independently significant contributors to in-hospital mortality. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of ventilator days, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. We further commented on use of lung protective ventilation and frequency of ventilator changes made in this cohort.

RESULTS

We enrolled 535 patients, of whom 525 met all inclusion criteria. Altered mental status without respiratory pathology was the most common reason for intubation, followed by trauma and respiratory failure. Using iterated Cox regression, a mortality effect occurred at ED time of mechanical ventilation > 7 hours, and the longer ED stay was also associated with a longer total duration of intubation. However, adjusted multivariable regression analysis demonstrated only older age and admission to the neurosciences ICU as independently associated with increased mortality. Of interest, only 23.8% of patients ventilated in the ED for over seven hours had changes made to their ventilator.

CONCLUSION

In a prospective observational study of patients mechanically ventilated in the ED, there was a significant mortality benefit to expedited transfer of patients into an appropriate ICU setting.

Protective lung strategies: A cross sectional survey of nurses knowledge and use in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is commonly used in emergency departments (EDs). Protective lung strategies (PLS), comprising of low tidal volume (6mL/kg), control of oxygen and plateau pressures, and administration of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been shown to reduces the risks associated with MV but there is little evidence exists about nurses' knowledge or application of PLS. Our aim was to explore nurses knowledge and application of PLS in Australian EDs.

METHODS

Descriptive, exploratory design utilising an online questionnaire. A convenience sample was recruited via the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia mailing list and secondary snowball sampling was used to optimise response rate.

RESULTS

There were 157 participants. PLS are being used in most EDs (n=104, 75%) and clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are often available (n=86, 62%). Most ED ventilators are capable of implementing PLS, but measurement of plateau pressures was infrequent (n=46%). Participants demonstrate appropriate knowledge, but reported varying levels of confidence and perceived autonomy when implementing PLS in the ED.

CONCLUSION

PLS are being used in Australian EDs, aligning with best available evidence. Nursing staff have good levels of PLS knowledge. Development of an evidence-based CPG may improve confidence when implementing PLS and may pave the way for ED nurses to expand their scope of practice.

Evaluation of self-perception of mechanical ventilation knowledge among Brazilian final-year medical students, residents and emergency physicians

OBJECTIVE:

To present self-assessments of knowledge about mechanical ventilation made by final-year medical students, residents, and physicians taking qualifying courses at the Brazilian Society of Internal Medicine who work in urgent and emergency settings.

METHODS:

A 34-item questionnaire comprising different areas of knowledge and training in mechanical ventilation was given to 806 medical students, residents, and participants in qualifying courses at 11 medical schools in Brazil. The questionnaire's self-assessment items for knowledge were transformed into scores.

RESULTS:

The average score among all participants was 21% (0-100%). Of the total, 85% respondents felt they did not receive sufficient information about mechanical ventilation during medical training. Additionally, 77% of the group reported that they would not know when to start noninvasive ventilation in a patient, and 81%, 81%, and 89% would not know how to start volume control, pressure control and pressure support ventilation modes, respectively. Furthermore, 86.4% and 94% of the participants believed they would not identify the basic principles of mechanical ventilation in patients with obstructive pulmonary disease and acute respiratory distress syndrome, respectively, and would feel insecure beginning ventilation. Finally, 77% said they would fear for the safety of a patient requiring invasive mechanical ventilation under their care.

CONCLUSION:

Self-assessment of knowledge and self-perception of safety for managing mechanical ventilation were deficient among residents, students and emergency physicians from a sample in Brazil.

Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians' Knowledge of Mechanical Ventilation

Introduction

Although emergency physicians frequently intubate patients, management of mechanical ventilation has not been emphasized in emergency medicine (EM) education or clinical practice. The objective of this study was to quantify EM attendings’ education, experience, and knowledge regarding mechanical ventilation in the emergency department.

Methods

We developed a survey of academic EM attendings’ educational experiences with ventilators and a knowledge assessment tool with nine clinical questions. EM attendings at key teaching hospitals for seven EM residency training programs in the northeastern United States were invited to participate in this survey study. We performed correlation and regression analyses to evaluate the relationship between attendings’ scores on the assessment instrument and their training, education, and comfort with ventilation.

Results

Of 394 EM attendings surveyed, 211 responded (53.6%). Of respondents, 74.5% reported receiving three or fewer hours of ventilation-related education from EM sources over the past year and 98 (46%) reported receiving between 0–1 hour of education. The overall correct response rate for the assessment tool was 73.4%, with a standard deviation of 19.9. The factors associated with a higher score were completion of an EM residency, prior emphasis on mechanical ventilation during one’s own residency, working in a setting where an emergency physician bears primary responsibility for ventilator management, and level of comfort with managing ventilated patients. Physicians’ comfort was associated with the frequency of ventilator changes and EM management of ventilation, as well as hours of education.

Conclusion

EM attendings report caring for mechanically ventilated patients frequently, but most receive fewer than three educational hours a year on mechanical ventilation, and nearly half receive 0–1 hour. Physicians’ performance on an assessment tool for mechanical ventilation is most strongly correlated with their self-reported comfort with mechanical ventilation.

Initial mechanical ventilator settings and lung protective ventilation in the ED

OBJECTIVE

Mechanical ventilation with low tidal volumes has been shown to improve outcomes for patients both with and without acute respiratory distress syndrome. This study aims to characterize mechanically ventilated patients in the emergency department (ED), describe the initial ED ventilator settings, and assess for associations between lung protective ventilation strategies in the ED and outcomes.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study of mechanical ventilation at 3 academic EDs. We defined lung protective ventilation as a tidal volume of less than or equal to 8 mL/kg of predicted body weight and compared outcomes for patients ventilated with lung protective vs non-lung protective ventilation, including inhospital mortality, ventilator days, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Data from 433 patients were analyzed. Altered mental status without respiratory pathology was the most common reason for intubation, followed by trauma and respiratory failure. Two hundred sixty-one patients (60.3%) received lung protective ventilation, but most patients were ventilated with a low positive end-expiratory pressure, high fraction of inspired oxygen strategy. Patients were ventilated in the ED for a mean of 5 hours and 7 minutes but had few ventilator adjustments. Outcomes were not significantly different between patients receiving lung protective vs non-lung protective ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 40% of ED patients were ventilated with non-lung protective ventilation as well as with low positive end-expiratory pressure and high fraction of inspired oxygen. Despite a mean ED ventilation time of more than 5 hours, few patients had adjustments made to their ventilators.

Emergency medicine residents' knowledge of mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Although Emergency physicians frequently intubate patients, management of mechanical ventilation has not been emphasized in emergency medicine (EM) residency curricula.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to quantify EM residents' education, experience, and knowledge regarding mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

We developed a survey of residents' educational experiences with ventilators and an assessment tool with nine clinical questions. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between residents' scores on the assessment instrument and their training, education, and comfort with ventilation.

RESULTS

Of 312 EM residents, 218 responded (69.9%). The overall correct response rate for the assessment tool was 73.3%, standard deviation (SD) ± 22.3. Seventy-seven percent (n = 167) of respondents reported ≤ 3 h of mechanical ventilation education in their residency curricula over the past year. Residents reported frequently caring for ventilated patients in the ED, as 64% (n = 139) recalled caring for ≥ 4 ventilated patients per month. Fifty-three percent (n = 116) of residents endorsed feeling comfortable caring for mechanically ventilated ED patients. In multiregression analysis, the only significant predictor of total test score was residents' comfort with caring for mechanically ventilated patients (F = 10.963, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EM residents report caring for mechanically ventilated patients frequently, but receive little education on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, as residents' performance on the assessment tool is only correlated with their self-reported comfort with caring for ventilated patients, these results demonstrate an opportunity for increased educational focus on mechanical ventilation management in EM residency training.

Management of critically ill patients receiving noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in the emergency department

Patients requiring noninvasive and invasive ventilation frequently present to emergency departments, and may remain for prolonged periods due to constrained critical care services. Emergency clinicians often do not receive the same education on management of mechanical ventilation or have similar exposure to these patients as do their critical care colleagues. The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on management of patients requiring noninvasive and invasive ventilation in the emergency department including indications, clinical applications, monitoring priorities, and potential complications. Noninvasive ventilation is recommended for patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Less evidence supports its use in asthma and other causes of acute respiratory failure. Use of noninvasive ventilation in the prehospital setting is relatively new, and some evidence suggests benefit. Monitoring priorities for noninvasive ventilation include response to treatment, respiratory and hemodynamic stability, noninvasive ventilation tolerance, detection of noninvasive ventilation failure, and identification of air leaks around the interface. Application of injurious ventilation increases patient morbidity and mortality. Lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volumes based on determination of predicted body weight and control of plateau pressure has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, and some evidence exists to suggest this strategy should be used in patients without lung injury. Monitoring of the invasively ventilated patient should focus on assessing response to mechanical ventilation and other interventions, and avoiding complications, such as ventilator-associated pneumonia. Several key aspects of management of noninvasive and invasively ventilated patients are discussed, with a particular emphasis on initiation and ongoing monitoring priorities focused on maintaining patient safety and improving patient outcomes.