Respiratory care · 2016
Ability of ICU Health-Care Professionals to Identify Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony Using Waveform Analysis.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ramirez Ivan I, Arellano Daniel H, Adasme Rodrigo S, Landeros Jose M, Salinas Francisco A, Vargas Alvaro G, Vasquez Francisco J, Lobos Ignacio A, Oyarzun Magdalena L, Restrepo Ruben D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Waveform analysis by visual inspection can be a reliable, noninvasive, and useful tool for detecting patient-ventilator asynchrony. However, it is a skill that requires a properly trained professional.
METHODS: This observational study was conducted in 17 urban ICUs. Health-care professionals (HCPs) working in these ICUs were asked to recognize different types of asynchrony shown in 3 evaluation videos. The health-care professionals were categorized according to years of experience, prior training in mechanical ventilation, profession, and number of asynchronies identified correctly.
RESULTS: A total of 366 HCPs were evaluated. Statistically significant differences were found when HCPs with and without prior training in mechanical ventilation (trained vs non-trained HCPs) were compared according to the number of asynchronies detected correctly (of the HCPs who identified 3 asynchronies, 63 [81%] trained vs 15 [19%] non-trained, P < .001; 2 asynchronies, 72 [65%] trained vs 39 [35%] non-trained, P = .034; 1 asynchrony, 55 [47%] trained vs 61 [53%] non-trained, P = .02; 0 asynchronies, 17 [28%] trained vs 44 [72%] non-trained, P < .001). HCPs who had prior training in mechanical ventilation also increased, nearly 4-fold, their odds of identifying ≥2 asynchronies correctly (odds ratio 3.67, 95% CI 1.93-6.96, P < .001). However, neither years of experience nor profession were associated with the ability of HCPs to identify asynchrony.
CONCLUSIONS: HCPs who have specific training in mechanical ventilation increase their ability to identify asynchrony using waveform analysis. Neither experience nor profession proved to be a relevant factor to identify asynchrony correctly using waveform analysis.
METHODS: This observational study was conducted in 17 urban ICUs. Health-care professionals (HCPs) working in these ICUs were asked to recognize different types of asynchrony shown in 3 evaluation videos. The health-care professionals were categorized according to years of experience, prior training in mechanical ventilation, profession, and number of asynchronies identified correctly.
RESULTS: A total of 366 HCPs were evaluated. Statistically significant differences were found when HCPs with and without prior training in mechanical ventilation (trained vs non-trained HCPs) were compared according to the number of asynchronies detected correctly (of the HCPs who identified 3 asynchronies, 63 [81%] trained vs 15 [19%] non-trained, P < .001; 2 asynchronies, 72 [65%] trained vs 39 [35%] non-trained, P = .034; 1 asynchrony, 55 [47%] trained vs 61 [53%] non-trained, P = .02; 0 asynchronies, 17 [28%] trained vs 44 [72%] non-trained, P < .001). HCPs who had prior training in mechanical ventilation also increased, nearly 4-fold, their odds of identifying ≥2 asynchronies correctly (odds ratio 3.67, 95% CI 1.93-6.96, P < .001). However, neither years of experience nor profession were associated with the ability of HCPs to identify asynchrony.
CONCLUSIONS: HCPs who have specific training in mechanical ventilation increase their ability to identify asynchrony using waveform analysis. Neither experience nor profession proved to be a relevant factor to identify asynchrony correctly using waveform analysis.