Although the optimal ventilation strategy is unknown for patients placed on extracorporeal support, there are increasing reports of extubation being used. Our objective was to describe the change in ventilation strategies and use of tracheostomy and bronchoscopy practices among extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) centers across the world. A descriptive, cross-sectional 22 item survey of neonatal, pediatric, and adult ECMO centers was used to evaluate ventilator strategies, extubation, bronchoscopy, and tracheostomy practices. Extubation practices are increasing among all types of ECMO centers, representing 27% of all patients in pediatric centers, 41% of all patients in mixed centers, and 52% of all patients in adult centers. The most common mode of ventilation during ECMO is pressure control. There is a trend toward increased use of bilevel ventilation particularly for lung recruitment. Additionally, there is a trend toward increase in performance of bronchoscopy (pediatrics: 69%, mixed centers: 81%, adults: 76%) and tracheostomy. Among the centers performing tracheostomies, 45% reported the percutaneous method (pediatric: 31%, mixed: 46%, adult: 57%), 19% reported the open method (pediatric: 9%, mixed: 27%, adult: 24%), and 10% reported using both types of tracheostomies (pediatric: 2%, mixed: 8%, adult: 16%). Our study shows that ECMO centers are extubating their patients, performing tracheostomies and bronchoscopies on their patients more than in the previous years. There remains significant variation in ECMO ventilator strategies and management internationally. Future studies are needed to correlate these changes in practices to outcome benefits.
As more states move to full SSOP regulatory environments, organizational regulation of NP practice can impede attainment of full practice authority. Future research is needed to determine whether variations in regulation of PICU NP practice influence patient outcomes, interdisciplinary collaboration, and NP role actualization.
Background Little is known about how the education and specialty certification of intensive care unit nurses influence patients’ outcomes. Objective To examine the relationships between critical care nurses’ education level and specialty certification, their individual psychosocial beliefs about their place on the intensive care unit team (in relation to 3 factors: professional identity, self-efficacy, and role clarity), and their perceptions of evidence-based practices used in the intensive care unit. Methods A cross-sectional survey was emailed to nurses in 12 adult intensive care units within 6 hospitals in a single, integrated health care system. Results Of 268 respondents, 180 (71%) had a bachelor of science degree or higher, and 71 (26%) had critical care certification. Compared with noncertified nurses, certified nurses reported greater knowledge of spontaneous breathing trials (4.6 vs 4.4 on a 5-point scale, P = .03) and lung-protective ventilation (4.2 vs 3.9, P = .05). Certified nurses reported significantly higher self-efficacy (4.5 vs 4.3 on a 5-point scale, P = .001) and role clarity (4.4 vs 4.2, P = .05) than noncertified nurses. Certification was also associated with greater perceived value in specific practices (daily interruption of sedation: adjusted odds ratio 2.5 [95% CI, 1.0-6.3], P = .05; lung-protective ventilation: adjusted odds ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1-3.3], P = .03). Education level was not associated with greater knowledge of or perceived value in evidence-based practices. Conclusions Nursing specialty certification was associated with nurses’ individual psychosocial beliefs and their perceptions of evidence-based practices in the intensive care unit, whereas education level was not. Supporting nurses in obtaining specialty certification could assist with the adoption of evidence-based practices as a means to improve quality of care in the intensive care unit.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.