Stacey Haughton BExSci, DPT , Krisha Saravanan BHSc, BPsychHons , Luke A. McDonald BHlthSci, MPhysioPrac , Joleen W. Rose BSci(Hons), BPhysio(Hons) , Sue Berney BPT, PhD , David J. Berlowitz BAppSciPhty, PhD , Thomas C. Rollinson BPhysio(Hons) , Marnie Graco BPhysio(Hons), PhD
{"title":"Acceptability of a physiotherapy-led intensive prone positioning service in intensive care: A qualitative study with multidisciplinary clinicians","authors":"Stacey Haughton BExSci, DPT , Krisha Saravanan BHSc, BPsychHons , Luke A. McDonald BHlthSci, MPhysioPrac , Joleen W. Rose BSci(Hons), BPhysio(Hons) , Sue Berney BPT, PhD , David J. Berlowitz BAppSciPhty, PhD , Thomas C. Rollinson BPhysio(Hons) , Marnie Graco BPhysio(Hons), PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.101162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in an increased number of patients with COVID-19–related respiratory failure requiring prone positioning. To reduce pressure on nursing and medical staff in the intensive care unit (ICU), a physiotherapy-led intensive prone positioning (PhLIP) service was implemented.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The aim of this study was to explore the acceptability of the PhLIP service from the perspective of nurses and doctors working in the ICU and the physiotherapists who delivered the service.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A qualitative evaluation was conducted using semistructured interviews and focus groups, guided by the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). Participants included doctors, nurses, and physiotherapists who interacted with or delivered the PhLIP service.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 19 interviews (eight doctors and 11 physiotherapists) and four focus groups (13 nurses) were conducted. Eleven themes were identified within the eight domains of the TFA. Overall, the PhLIP team was highly valued and appreciated (TFA: affective attitude); enabled high-quality care and improved ICU efficiency (TFA: perceived effectiveness); reduced risks to patients and staff (TFA: perceived safety and risk); and was empowering for the clinicians involved (TFA: self-efficacy). Being in the PhLIP team was physically and mentally exhausting, and the service put strain on the physiotherapy department due to reallocation of staff (TFA: burden). Having trust in the physiotherapists leading the prone positioning service was a key influence on nursing and medical acceptance of the service.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The PhLIP team delivered an acceptable service that improved clinical care and efficiency during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other ICUs should consider the availability, skills, and confidence in the team selected to implement an intensive prone positioning service, should the need arise again. Researchers using the TFA to explore acceptability of healthcare innovations should also consider the recipients’ trust in those delivering the intervention.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51239,"journal":{"name":"Australian Critical Care","volume":"38 3","pages":"Article 101162"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1036731424003138","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in an increased number of patients with COVID-19–related respiratory failure requiring prone positioning. To reduce pressure on nursing and medical staff in the intensive care unit (ICU), a physiotherapy-led intensive prone positioning (PhLIP) service was implemented.
Objectives
The aim of this study was to explore the acceptability of the PhLIP service from the perspective of nurses and doctors working in the ICU and the physiotherapists who delivered the service.
Methods
A qualitative evaluation was conducted using semistructured interviews and focus groups, guided by the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). Participants included doctors, nurses, and physiotherapists who interacted with or delivered the PhLIP service.
Results
A total of 19 interviews (eight doctors and 11 physiotherapists) and four focus groups (13 nurses) were conducted. Eleven themes were identified within the eight domains of the TFA. Overall, the PhLIP team was highly valued and appreciated (TFA: affective attitude); enabled high-quality care and improved ICU efficiency (TFA: perceived effectiveness); reduced risks to patients and staff (TFA: perceived safety and risk); and was empowering for the clinicians involved (TFA: self-efficacy). Being in the PhLIP team was physically and mentally exhausting, and the service put strain on the physiotherapy department due to reallocation of staff (TFA: burden). Having trust in the physiotherapists leading the prone positioning service was a key influence on nursing and medical acceptance of the service.
Conclusion
The PhLIP team delivered an acceptable service that improved clinical care and efficiency during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other ICUs should consider the availability, skills, and confidence in the team selected to implement an intensive prone positioning service, should the need arise again. Researchers using the TFA to explore acceptability of healthcare innovations should also consider the recipients’ trust in those delivering the intervention.
期刊介绍:
Australian Critical Care is the official journal of the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN). It is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal, providing clinically relevant research, reviews and articles of interest to the critical care community. Australian Critical Care publishes peer-reviewed scholarly papers that report research findings, research-based reviews, discussion papers and commentaries which are of interest to an international readership of critical care practitioners, educators, administrators and researchers. Interprofessional articles are welcomed.