Factors influencing nurses' use of sedation interruptions in a critical care unit: a descriptive qualitative study

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

This study examined critical care nurses', physicians', and allied health professionals' perceptions of factors that support, inhibit, or limit the use of sedation interruption (SI) to improve the use of this integral component of care for mechanically ventilated patients.

METHOD

We conducted a theory-based, descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with critical care registered nurses, respiratory therapists, a pharmacist, and a physician in a hospital in Ontario, Canada. The interview guide and analysis were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and transcripts were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 9 facilitators and 20 barriers to SI use by nurses. Facilitators included the innovation (importance of protocols) and potential adopters (comfort with the skill). The barriers were the potential adopters' (nurses) knowledge gaps regarding the performance and goal of SI and the practice environment (lack of time, availability of extra staff, and lack of multidisciplinary rounds).

CONCLUSION

This study identified facilitators and barriers to SI for mechanically ventilated patients. Implementation efforts must address barriers associated with nurses, the environment, and contextual factors. A team-based approach is essential, as the absence of interprofessional rounds is a significant barrier to the appropriate use or non-use of SI. Future research can focus on the indications, contraindications, and goals of SI, emphasizing a shared appreciation for these factors across disciplines. Nursing capacity to manage a patient waking up from sedation is necessary for point-of-care adherence; future research should focus on the best ways to do so. Implementation study designs should use theory and evidence-based determinants of SI to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap.

SPANISH ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A178.

A systematic review and critical appraisal of guidelines and their recommendations for sedation interruptions in adult mechanically ventilated patients

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of the review were to (i) assess the methodological quality of all accessible and published guidelines and care bundles that offer a recommendation related to sedation interruptions, using the AGREE-II instrument, to (ii) determine what is the recommended best practice for sedation interruptions from the available guidelines, and then to have (iii) a closer inspection of the overall credibility and applicability of the recommendations using the AGREE-REX instrument. This review will benefit the outcomes of critically ill patients and the multidisciplinary team responsible for the care of mechanically ventilated adults with continuous medication infusions by providing a synthesis of the recommended action(s), actor(s), contextual information, target(s), and timing related to sedation interruptions from current best practice.

REVIEW METHOD USED

We conducted a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We applied a peer-reviewed search strategy to four electronic databases from 2010 to November 2021-MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews-and included grey literature.

REVIEW METHOD

Findings are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses checklist. We assessed overall quality using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II and AGREE Recommendation Excellence tools.

RESULTS

We identified 11 clinical practice guidelines and care bundles comprising 15 recommendations related to sedation interruption. There are three key findings: (i) deficiencies exist with the methodological quality of included guidelines, (ii) sedation interruption is recommended practice for the care of adult mechanically ventilated patients, and (iii) the current evidence is of low quality, which impacts overall credibility and applicability of the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation interruptions are currently best practice for adult mechanically ventilated patients; however, the available guidelines and recommendations have several deficiencies. Future research is needed to further understand the role of the nurse and other actors to enact this practice.

The SITS framework: sustaining innovations in tertiary settings

Background

To date, little attention has focused on what the determinants are and how evidence-based practices (EBPs) are sustained in tertiary settings (i.e., acute care hospitals). Current literature reveals several frameworks designed for implementation of EBPs (0-2 years), yet fewer exist for the sustainment of EBPs (>2 years) in clinical practice. Frameworks containing both phases generally list few determinants for the sustained use phase, but rather state ongoing monitoring or evaluation is necessary. Notably, a recent review identified six constructs and related strategies that facilitate sustainment, however, the pairing of determinants and how best to sustain EBPs in tertiary settings over time remains unclear. The aim of this paper is to present an evidence-informed framework, which incorporates constructs, determinants, and knowledge translation interventions (KTIs) to guide implementation practitioners and researchers in the ongoing use of EBPs over time.

Methods

We combined the results of a systematic review and theory analysis of known sustainability frameworks/models/theories (F/M/Ts) with those from a case study using mixed methods that examined the ongoing use of an organization-wide pain EBP in a tertiary care center (hospital) in Canada. Data sources included peer-reviewed sustainability frameworks (n = 8) related to acute care, semi-structured interviews with nurses at the department (n = 3) and unit (n = 16) level, chart audits (n = 200), and document review (n = 29). We then compared unique framework components to the evolving literature and present main observations.

Results

We present the Sustaining Innovations in Tertiary Settings (SITS) framework which consists of 7 unique constructs, 49 determinants, and 29 related KTIs that influence the sustainability of EBPs in tertiary settings. Three determinants and 8 KTIs had a continuous influence during implementation and sustained use phases. Attention to the level of application and changing conditions over time affecting determinants is required for sustainment. Use of a participatory approach to engage users in designing remedial plans and linking KTIs to target behaviors that incrementally address low adherence rates promotes sustainability.

Conclusions

The SITS framework provides a novel resource to support future practice and research aimed at sustaining EBPs in tertiary settings and improving patient outcomes. Findings confirm the concept of sustainability is a "dynamic ongoing phase".

Sustaining a nursing best practice guideline in an acute care setting over 10 years: A mixed methods case study

Background

To improve patient outcomes many healthcare organizations have undertaken a number of steps to enhance the quality of care, including the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) such as clinical practice guidelines. However, there is little empirical understanding of the longer-term use of guideline-based practices and how to ensure their ongoing use. The aim of this study was to identify the determinants and knowledge translation interventions (KTIs) influencing ongoing use of selected recommendations of an institutional pain policy and protocol over time from an organizational perspective and 10 years post implementation on two units within an acute care setting.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods case study guided by the Dynamic Sustainability Framework of an EBP 10 years post implementation. We examined protocol sustainability at the nursing department and unit levels of a multi-site tertiary center in Canada. Data sources included document review (n = 29), chart audits (n = 200), and semi-structured interviews with nurses at the department (n = 3) and unit (n = 16) level.

Results

We identified 32 sustainability determinants and 29 KTIs influencing ongoing use of an EBP in acute care. Three determinants and eight KTIs had a continuous influence in all three time periods: implementation phase (0-2 yrs), sustained phase (>2-10 yrs.), and at the 10-year mark. Implementation of KTIs evolved with the level of application (e.g., department vs. unit) to fit the EBP within the context highlighting the need to focus on determinants influencing ongoing use. Sustainability was associated with continual efforts of monitoring and providing timely feedback regarding adherence to recommendations. KTIs used to embed recommendations into routine practices/processes positively influenced high adherence rates. Use of a participatory approach for implementation and sustainment and linking KTIs designed to incrementally address low adherence rates facilitated sustainment.

Conclusion

This research provides insight into the relationship between implementation and sustainability determinants and related KTIs during implementation and sustained use phases. Unique determinants identified by department and unit nurses reflect their different perspectives toward the innovation based on their respective roles and responsibilities. KTIs fostered changed behaviors and facilitated EBP sustainment in acute care. Findings confirm the concept of sustainability is a dynamic "ongoing process."

Identifying relevant concepts and factors for the sustainability of evidence-based practices within acute care contexts: a systematic review and theory analysis of selected sustainability frameworks

Background

There is growing recognition among healthcare professionals that the sustainability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within different settings is variable and suboptimal. Understanding why a particular EBP might be sustained in one setting and not another remains unclear. Recent reviews illustrate the need to identify and analyze existing frameworks/models/theories (F/M/Ts) that focus solely on the sustainability of EBPs in specific healthcare settings, such as acute care, to illuminate key determinants and facilitate appropriate selection to guide practice and research.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to extract sustainability frameworks. This involved using two available syntheses of the literature and a systematic search of four databases from January 2015 to July 2018: CINHAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ProQuest. We included studies published in English, and if they included sustainability F/M/Ts recommended for use in acute care or an unspecified healthcare organization/setting. F/M/Ts explicitly recommended for use in public health and or community settings were excluded. We then conducted a comparative analysis of F/M/Ts using a modified theory analysis approach, to understand the theoretical underpinnings of each F/M/T, their determinants and concepts hypothesized to influence the sustained use of EBPs within an acute care context.

Results

Of 2967 identified citations from the 2 available syntheses and the systematic review, 8 F/M/Ts met the inclusion criteria. We identified 37 core factors, of which 16 were recorded as common factors (occurring within 4 or more of the 8 included F/M/Ts). All factors grouped into 7 main themes: innovation, adopters, leadership and management, inner context, inner processes, outer context, and outcomes.

Conclusions

This systematic review is the first to include a comprehensive analysis of healthcare sustainability F/M/Ts for the sustained use of EBPs in acute care settings. Findings reveal insights into sustainability as a “process or ongoing stage of use” following initial implementation, suggesting this construct should be added to the definition of sustainability. Results provide a resource of available F/M/Ts and hypothesized factors to consider for acute care team members who are planning or currently implementing EBPs with the goal of improving patient outcomes. It also provides a basis for future research on sustainability in acute care.