氯胺酮体验式学习:关于处方和感知的混合方法探索性研究。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Pub Date : 2024-06-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S462760
Annette M Ilg, Christine P Beltran, Jenny A Shih, Tuyen T Yankama, Margaret M Hayes, Ari L Moskowitz
{"title":"氯胺酮体验式学习:关于处方和感知的混合方法探索性研究。","authors":"Annette M Ilg, Christine P Beltran, Jenny A Shih, Tuyen T Yankama, Margaret M Hayes, Ari L Moskowitz","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S462760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incorporating unfamiliar therapies into practice requires effective longitudinal learning and the optimal way to achieve this is debated. Though not a novel therapy, ketamine in critical care has a paucity of data and variable acceptance, with limited research describing intensivist perceptions and utilization. The Coronavirus-19 pandemic presented a particular crisis where providers rapidly adapted analgosedation strategies to achieve prolonged, deep sedation due to a surge of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).</p><p><strong>Question: </strong>How does clinical experience with ketamine impact the perception and attitude of clinicians toward this therapy?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a mixed-methods study using quantitative ketamine prescription data and qualitative focus group data. We analyzed prescription patterns of ketamine in a tertiary academic ICU during two different time points: pre-COVID-19 (March 1-June 30, 2019) and during the COVID-19 surge (March 1-June 30, 2020). Two focus groups (FG) of critical care attendings were held, and data were analyzed using the Framework Method for content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four-hundred forty-six medical ICU patients were mechanically ventilated (195 pre-COVID-19 and 251 during COVID-19). The COVID-19 population was more likely to receive ketamine (81[32.3%] vs 4 [2.1%], p < 0.001). Thirteen respondents participated across two FG sessions (Pre-COVID = 8, Post-COVID=5). The most prevalent attitude among our respondents was discomfort, with three key themes identified as follows: 1) lack of evidence regarding ketamine, 2) lack of personal experience, and 3) desire for more education and protocols.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite a substantial increase in ketamine prescription during COVID-19, intensivists continued to feel discomfort with utilization. Factors contributing to this discomfort include a lack of evidence, a lack of experience, and a desire for more education and protocols. Increase in experience with ketamine alone was not sufficient to minimize provider discomfort. These findings should inform future curricula and call for process improvement to optimize continuing education.</p>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11199167/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experiential Learning with Ketamine: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study on Prescription and Perception.\",\"authors\":\"Annette M Ilg, Christine P Beltran, Jenny A Shih, Tuyen T Yankama, Margaret M Hayes, Ari L Moskowitz\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/TCRM.S462760\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incorporating unfamiliar therapies into practice requires effective longitudinal learning and the optimal way to achieve this is debated. Though not a novel therapy, ketamine in critical care has a paucity of data and variable acceptance, with limited research describing intensivist perceptions and utilization. The Coronavirus-19 pandemic presented a particular crisis where providers rapidly adapted analgosedation strategies to achieve prolonged, deep sedation due to a surge of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).</p><p><strong>Question: </strong>How does clinical experience with ketamine impact the perception and attitude of clinicians toward this therapy?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a mixed-methods study using quantitative ketamine prescription data and qualitative focus group data. We analyzed prescription patterns of ketamine in a tertiary academic ICU during two different time points: pre-COVID-19 (March 1-June 30, 2019) and during the COVID-19 surge (March 1-June 30, 2020). Two focus groups (FG) of critical care attendings were held, and data were analyzed using the Framework Method for content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four-hundred forty-six medical ICU patients were mechanically ventilated (195 pre-COVID-19 and 251 during COVID-19). The COVID-19 population was more likely to receive ketamine (81[32.3%] vs 4 [2.1%], p < 0.001). Thirteen respondents participated across two FG sessions (Pre-COVID = 8, Post-COVID=5). The most prevalent attitude among our respondents was discomfort, with three key themes identified as follows: 1) lack of evidence regarding ketamine, 2) lack of personal experience, and 3) desire for more education and protocols.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite a substantial increase in ketamine prescription during COVID-19, intensivists continued to feel discomfort with utilization. Factors contributing to this discomfort include a lack of evidence, a lack of experience, and a desire for more education and protocols. Increase in experience with ketamine alone was not sufficient to minimize provider discomfort. These findings should inform future curricula and call for process improvement to optimize continuing education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11199167/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S462760\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S462760","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:将不熟悉的疗法融入实践需要有效的纵向学习,而实现这一目标的最佳方法还存在争议。氯胺酮虽然不是一种新疗法,但在重症监护中应用的数据很少,接受程度也不尽相同,对重症监护人员的看法和使用情况的研究也很有限。冠状病毒-19 大流行带来了一场特殊的危机,由于严重急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的激增,医护人员迅速调整了镇静策略,以实现长时间深度镇静:氯胺酮的临床经验如何影响临床医生对这种疗法的认识和态度?我们使用氯胺酮处方定量数据和焦点小组定性数据进行了一项混合方法研究。我们分析了一个三级学术重症监护病房在两个不同时间点的氯胺酮处方模式:COVID-19 前(2019 年 3 月 1 日至 6 月 30 日)和 COVID-19 高峰期(2020 年 3 月 1 日至 6 月 30 日)。召开了两次重症监护主治医师焦点小组(FG)会议,并采用框架法对数据进行了内容分析:446 名内科 ICU 患者接受了机械通气(COVID-19 前为 195 人,COVID-19 期间为 251 人)。COVID-19人群更有可能使用氯胺酮(81[32.3%] vs 4 [2.1%],P < 0.001)。13 名受访者参加了两次 FG 会议(COVID 前=8,COVID 后=5)。受访者最普遍的态度是不舒服,并确定了以下三个关键主题:1) 缺乏有关氯胺酮的证据;2) 缺乏个人经验;3) 希望获得更多教育和协议:结论:尽管在 COVID-19 期间氯胺酮处方量大幅增加,但重症监护医师仍对使用氯胺酮感到不适。结论:尽管在 COVID-19 期间氯胺酮处方量大幅增加,但重症监护医师仍对使用氯胺酮感到不适应,导致这种不适应的因素包括缺乏证据、缺乏经验以及希望获得更多教育和协议。仅凭氯胺酮使用经验的增加不足以将医护人员的不适感降至最低。这些发现应为今后的课程提供参考,并呼吁改进流程以优化继续教育。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Experiential Learning with Ketamine: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study on Prescription and Perception.

Background: Incorporating unfamiliar therapies into practice requires effective longitudinal learning and the optimal way to achieve this is debated. Though not a novel therapy, ketamine in critical care has a paucity of data and variable acceptance, with limited research describing intensivist perceptions and utilization. The Coronavirus-19 pandemic presented a particular crisis where providers rapidly adapted analgosedation strategies to achieve prolonged, deep sedation due to a surge of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Question: How does clinical experience with ketamine impact the perception and attitude of clinicians toward this therapy?

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study using quantitative ketamine prescription data and qualitative focus group data. We analyzed prescription patterns of ketamine in a tertiary academic ICU during two different time points: pre-COVID-19 (March 1-June 30, 2019) and during the COVID-19 surge (March 1-June 30, 2020). Two focus groups (FG) of critical care attendings were held, and data were analyzed using the Framework Method for content analysis.

Results: Four-hundred forty-six medical ICU patients were mechanically ventilated (195 pre-COVID-19 and 251 during COVID-19). The COVID-19 population was more likely to receive ketamine (81[32.3%] vs 4 [2.1%], p < 0.001). Thirteen respondents participated across two FG sessions (Pre-COVID = 8, Post-COVID=5). The most prevalent attitude among our respondents was discomfort, with three key themes identified as follows: 1) lack of evidence regarding ketamine, 2) lack of personal experience, and 3) desire for more education and protocols.

Conclusion: Despite a substantial increase in ketamine prescription during COVID-19, intensivists continued to feel discomfort with utilization. Factors contributing to this discomfort include a lack of evidence, a lack of experience, and a desire for more education and protocols. Increase in experience with ketamine alone was not sufficient to minimize provider discomfort. These findings should inform future curricula and call for process improvement to optimize continuing education.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
139
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas. The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
期刊最新文献
Medications Associated with Geriatric Syndromes and Prescribing Patterns: The Impact of Excessive Polypharmacy in Older Adult Patients. Three Artificial Liver Models of Treatment of Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure. The Utility of Speckle Tracking Echocardiographic Parameters in Predicting Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Catheter Ablation in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation. Potentially Risk Factors for New Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Analysis of Influencing Factors and Construction of Predictive Model for Persistent Cough After Lung Cancer Resection Under Thoracoscopy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1