International journal of nursing studies · 2008
Non-invasive mechanical ventilation in Australian emergency departments: a prospective observational cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Rose L, Gerdtz M F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Data describing use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the emergency department (ED) setting consist primarily of physician surveys. Our objective was to conduct a prospective study to document the characteristics of patients receiving NIV, interfaces, mode, and parameters used as well as NIV duration and decision-making responsibility.
METHODS: We conducted a 2-month prospective observational study of adult patients who received NIV in 24 EDs. Patient characteristics, delivery methods, and decision-making responsibility were documented for each ED presentation.
RESULTS: Data were recorded on 245 patients; 185 patients received non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and 60 received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPO) (80/245, 33%) and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (75/245, 31%) were the two most frequent indications for NIV. Compared to patients with respiratory failure from other aetiologies, those with ACPO were more likely to receive CPAP (28/80 [35%] versus 32/165 [19%] P=0.008). Initial NIV settings were selected by ED nurses for 118/245 (48%) patients, by ED physicians for 118/245 (48%) patients, and by ICU staff for 3/245 (1.5%) patients (not reported for 6 [2.5%] patients). The role of ED nurses in the selection of initial NIV settings was not influenced by ED location, patient type or triage category.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute exacerbations of CPO and COPD were the most common indications for NIV. Clinicians demonstrated a preference for NIPPV for all patient aetiologies except ACPO. Responsibility for NIV management was shared by ED nurses and physicians.
METHODS: We conducted a 2-month prospective observational study of adult patients who received NIV in 24 EDs. Patient characteristics, delivery methods, and decision-making responsibility were documented for each ED presentation.
RESULTS: Data were recorded on 245 patients; 185 patients received non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and 60 received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPO) (80/245, 33%) and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (75/245, 31%) were the two most frequent indications for NIV. Compared to patients with respiratory failure from other aetiologies, those with ACPO were more likely to receive CPAP (28/80 [35%] versus 32/165 [19%] P=0.008). Initial NIV settings were selected by ED nurses for 118/245 (48%) patients, by ED physicians for 118/245 (48%) patients, and by ICU staff for 3/245 (1.5%) patients (not reported for 6 [2.5%] patients). The role of ED nurses in the selection of initial NIV settings was not influenced by ED location, patient type or triage category.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute exacerbations of CPO and COPD were the most common indications for NIV. Clinicians demonstrated a preference for NIPPV for all patient aetiologies except ACPO. Responsibility for NIV management was shared by ED nurses and physicians.