The systematic implementation of evidence-based practice through the use of guidelines, checklists, and protocols mitigates the risks associated with mechanical ventilation, yet variation in practice remains prevalent. Recent advances in software and hardware have allowed for the development and deployment of an enhanced visualization tool that identifies mechanical ventilation goal variance. Our aim was to assess the utility of daily goal establishment and a computer-aided visualization of variance.
METHODS:
This study was composed of 3 phases: a retrospective observational phase (baseline) followed by 2 prospective sequential interventions. Phase I intervention comprised daily goal establishment of mechanical ventilation. Phase II intervention was the setting and monitoring of daily goals of mechanical ventilation with a web-based data visualization system (T3). A single score of mechanical ventilation was developed to evaluate the outcome.
RESULTS:
The baseline phase evaluated 130 subjects, phase I enrolled 31 subjects, and phase II enrolled 36 subjects. There were no differences in demographic characteristics between cohorts. A total of 171 verbalizations of goals of mechanical ventilation were completed in phase I. The use of T3 increased by 87% from phase I. Mechanical ventilation score improved by 8.4% in phase I and 11.3% in phase II from baseline (P = .032). The largest effect was in the low risk VT category, with a 40.3% improvement from baseline in phase I, which was maintained at 39% improvement from baseline in phase II (P = .01). mechanical ventilation score was 9% higher on average in those who survived.
CONCLUSIONS:
Daily goal formation and computer-enhanced visualization of mechanical ventilation variance were associated with an improvement in goal attainment by evidence of an improved mechanical ventilation score. Further research is needed to determine whether improvements in mechanical ventilation score through a targeted, process-oriented intervention will lead to improved patient outcomes. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02184208.)
WalshTS, DoddsS, McArdleF. Evaluation of simple criteria to predict successful weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care patients. Br J Anaesth, 2004; 92(6):793–799.
2.
BlackwoodB, AlderdiceF, BurnsK, CardwellC, LaveryG, O'HalloranP. Use of weaning protocols for reducing duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients: Cochrane Review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 2011; 342:c7237.
3.
ElyEW. The utility of weaning protocols to expedite liberation from mechanical ventilation. Respir Care Clin N Am, 2000; 6(2):303–319, vi.
4.
MacIntyreNR, CookDJ, ElyEWJr, EpsteinSK, FinkJB, HeffnerJE, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for weaning and discontinuing ventilatory support: a collective task force facilitated by the American College of Chest Physicians; the American Association for Respiratory Care; and the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Chest, 2001; 120(6 Suppl):375S–395S.
5.
BurnsSM, EarvenS, FisherC, LewisR, MerrellP, SchubartJR, et al. Implementation of an institutional program to improve clinical and financial outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients: one-year outcomes and lessons learned. Crit Care Med, 2003; 31(12):2752–2763.
6.
EstebanA, AlíaI, GordoF, FernándezR, SolsonaJF, VallverdúI, et al. Extubation outcome after spontaneous breathing trials with T-tube or pressure support ventilation. The Spanish Lung Failure Collaborative Group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 1997; 156(2 Pt 1):459–465.
7.
ElyEW, BennettPA, BowtonDL, MurphySM, FloranceAM, HaponikEF. Large scale implementation of a respiratory therapist-driven protocol for ventilator weaning. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 1999; 159(2):439–446.
8.
KollefMH, ShapiroSD, SilverP, St JohnRE, PrenticeD, SauerS, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of protocol-directed versus physician-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med, 1997; 25(4):567–574.
9.
BrookAD, AhrensTS, SchaiffR, PrenticeD, ShermanG, ShannonW, KollefMH. Effect of a nursing-implemented sedation protocol on the duration of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med, 1999; 27(12):2609–2615.
10.
MarelichGP, MurinS, BattistellaF, InciardiJ, VierraT, RobyM. Protocol weaning of mechanical ventilation in medical and surgical patients by respiratory care practitioners and nurses: effect on weaning time and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest, 2000; 118(2):459–467.
11.
ScheinhornDJ, ChaoDC, Stearn-HassenpflugM, WallaceWA. Outcomes in post-ICU mechanical ventilation: a therapist-implemented weaning protocol. Chest, 2001; 119(1):236–242.
12.
SchultzTR, LinRJ, WatzmanHM, DurningSM, HalesR, WoodsonA, et al. Weaning children from mechanical ventilation: a prospective randomized trial of protocol-directed versus physician-directed weaning. Respir Care, 2001; 46(8):772–782.
13.
DriesDJ, McGonigalMD, MalianMS, BorBJ, SullivanC. Protocol-driven ventilator weaning reduces use of mechanical ventilation, rate of early reintubation, and ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Trauma, 2004; 56(5):943–951; discussion 951-952.
14.
TonnelierJM, PratG, Le GalG, Gut-GobertC, RenaultA, BolesJM, L'HerE. Impact of a nurses' protocol-directed weaning procedure on outcomes in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer than 48 hours: a prospective cohort study with a matched historical control group. Crit Care, 2005; 9(2):R83–R89.
15.
JusticeLB, CooperDS, HendersonC, BrownJ, SimonK, ClarkL, et al. Improving communication during cardiac ICU multidisciplinary rounds through visual display of patient daily goals. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2016; 17(7):677–683.
16.
MarshallJ, FinnCA, TheodoreAC. Impact of a clinical pharmacist-enforced intensive care unit sedation protocol on duration of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay. Crit Care Med, 2008; 36(2):427–433.
17.
RobertsonTE, SonaC, SchallomL, BucklesM, CracchioloL, SchuererD, et al. Improved extubation rates and earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation with implementation of a daily spontaneous-breathing trial protocol. J Am Coll Surg, 2008; 206(3):489–495.
18.
RohJH, SynnA, LimCM, SuhHJ, HongSB, HuhJW, KohY. A weaning protocol administered by critical care nurses for the weaning of patients from mechanical ventilation. J Crit Care, 2012; 27(6):549–555.
19.
TorbicH, PapadopoulosS, ManjouridesJ, DevlinJW. Impact of a protocol advocating dexmedetomidine over propofol sedation after robotic-assisted direct coronary artery bypass surgery on duration of mechanical ventilation and patient safety. Ann Pharmacother, 2013; 47(4):441–446.
20.
Writing Group for the CHECKLIST-ICU Investigators and the Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet), CavalcantiAB, BozzaFA, MachadoFR, SalluhJI, et al. Effect of a quality improvement intervention with daily round checklists, goal setting, and clinician prompting on mortality of critically ill patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2016; 315(14):1480–1490.
21.
ChatburnRL, DeemS. Respiratory controversies in the critical care setting. Should weaning protocols be used with all patients who receive mechanical ventilation?. Respir Care, 52(5):609–619, 2007; discussion 619-621.
22.
BennettJ. Protocol-directed sedation did not reduce duration of mechanical ventilation or hospital stay in ICU patients. Evid Based Nurs, 2008; 11(4):124.
23.
BucknallTK, ManiasE, PresneillJJ. A randomized trial of protocol-directed sedation management for mechanical ventilation in an Australian intensive care unit. Crit Care Med, 2008; 36(5):1444–1450.
24.
GuptaP, GiehlerK, WaltersRW, MeyerinkK, ModrykamienAM. The effect of a mechanical ventilation discontinuation protocol in patients with simple and difficult weaning: impact on clinical outcomes. Respir Care, 2014; 59(2):170–177.
25.
KarshBT. Clinical practice improvement and redesign: how change in workflow can be supported by clinical decision support. AHRQ Publication No. 09-0054-EF. Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009:16.
26.
HendrixH, KaiserME, YusenRD, MerkJ. A randomized trial of automated versus conventional protocol-driven weaning from mechanical ventilation following coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2006; 29(6):957–963.
27.
LelloucheF, ManceboJ, JollietP, RoeselerJ, SchortgenF, DojatM, et al. A multicenter randomized trial of computer-driven protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2006; 174(8):894–900.
28.
KohnLT, CorriganJ, DonaldsonMS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000:48.
29.
Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001:3.
30.
AspdenP. Making better use of health care information. Top Health Inf Manage, 1994; 14(3):57–73.
31.
ShekellePG, WachterRM, PronovostPJ, SchoellesK, McDonaldKM, DySM, et al. Making health care safer II: an updated critical analysis of the evidence for patient safety practices. Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
32.
Serpa NetoA, CardosoSO, ManettaJA, PereiraVG, EspósitoDC, Pasqualucci MdeO, et al. Association between use of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and clinical outcomes among patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. JAMA, 2012; 308(16):1651–1659.
33.
DetermannRM, RoyakkersA, WolthuisEK, VlaarAP, ChoiG, PaulusF, et al. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with conventional tidal volumes for patients without acute lung injury: a preventive randomized controlled trial. Crit Care, 2010; 14(1):R1.
34.
SchultzMJ. Lung-protective mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes in patients not suffering from acute lung injury: a review of clinical studies. Med Sci Monit, 2008; 14(2):RA22–RA26.
35.
WolthuisEK, ChoiG, DessingMC, BresserP, LutterR, DzoljicM, et al. Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure prevents pulmonary inflammation in patients without preexisting lung injury. Anesthesiology, 2008; 108(1):46–54.
36.
NetworkTARDS. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. N Engl J Med, 2000; 342(18):1301–1308.
37.
WalshBK, SmallwoodCD, RettigJS, ThompsonJE, KacmarekRM, ArnoldJH. Categorization in mechanically ventilated pediatric subjects: a proposed method to improve quality. Respir Care, 2016; 61(9):1168–1178.
38.
Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference Group. Pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome: consensus recommendations from the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2015; 16(5):428–439.
39.
TripathiRS, BlumJM, RosenbergAL, TremperKK. Pulse oximetry saturation to fraction inspired oxygen ratio as a measure of hypoxia under general anesthesia and the influence of positive end-expiratory pressure. J Crit Care, 2010; 25(3):542.e549–e513.
40.
ThomasNJ, ShafferML, WillsonDF, ShihMC, CurleyMA. Defining acute lung disease in children with the oxygenation saturation index. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2010; 11(1):12–17.
41.
PorterM. What is value in health care?. N Engl J Med, 2010; 363(26):2477–2481.
KneyberMC, ZhangH, SlutskyAS. Ventilator-induced lung injury: similarity and differences between children and adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2014; 190(3):258–265.
44.
KonstantinouGN. Pragmatic trials: how to adjust for the “Hawthorne effect”?. Thorax, 2012; 67(6):562; author reply 562.
45.
ParsonsHM. What happened at Hawthorne?: new evidence suggests the Hawthorne effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies. Science, 1974; 183(4128):922–932.
46.
UsichenkoTI, JulichA, WendtM. “Yes, we can” utilize the Hawthorne effect to improve postoperative analgesia. Br J Anaesth, 2013; 110(4):659.
