了解镇静丸在重症监护病房的使用:一项混合方法研究

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING Intensive and Critical Care Nursing Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1016/j.iccn.2025.103958
Christian Vincelette , François Martin Carrier , Charles Bilodeau , Michaël Chassé
{"title":"了解镇静丸在重症监护病房的使用:一项混合方法研究","authors":"Christian Vincelette ,&nbsp;François Martin Carrier ,&nbsp;Charles Bilodeau ,&nbsp;Michaël Chassé","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.103958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>To better understand the impact of sedations in the intensive care unit (ICU), an accurate understanding of the clinical practices surrounding sedation bolus use is essential.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Our primary objectives were to describe how sedation boluses are administered, and to compare observed and nurse-reported practices.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a mixed methods study comprising 150 quantitative observations in a large university-affiliated ICU and 10 semi-structured interviews with nurses recruited in the same ICU and from others in the Province of Quebec (Canada).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>During 150 observations, nurses administered 197 boluses. Nurses mostly administered boluses with a volumetric pump (76 %, 95 %CI 69–81 %). In interviews, all nurses expressed favoring volumetric pumps to administer boluses. Nurses documented bolus use in 58 % of observations (58 %, 95 %CI 50–66 %). Propofol and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs, and all nurses reported that they were the “classic“ bolus drugs. The median cumulative propofol and opioid bolus doses given by nurses were respectively 30 mg (95 %CI 25–30), and 50 µg in fentanyl-equivalent (95 %CI 50–50). We observed that nursing or medical interventions were the most common trigger for bolus use (63 %, 95 %CI 55–71 %), and these were among the main reason for bolus use reported in interviews (n = 9, 90 %). Increasing norepinephrine was observed (19 %, 95 %CI 13–26 %) and reported by all nurses as the most frequent interventions after boluses.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Nurses favor volumetric pumps to administer boluses and propofol and fentanyl were the most used drugs. Documentation of boluses was suboptimal. Sedation boluses often led to norepinephrine titration.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for clinical practice</h3><div>Sedation boluses administered to patients with continuous infusions of sedations often led to norepinephrine titration, suggesting that they may have implications for patient safety and outcomes. Merging electronic health records entries and volumetric pump data logs or data feeds may be essential to properly capture the exposure of ICU patients to sedation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 103958"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the use of sedation boluses in the intensive care unit: A mixed methods study\",\"authors\":\"Christian Vincelette ,&nbsp;François Martin Carrier ,&nbsp;Charles Bilodeau ,&nbsp;Michaël Chassé\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.103958\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>To better understand the impact of sedations in the intensive care unit (ICU), an accurate understanding of the clinical practices surrounding sedation bolus use is essential.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Our primary objectives were to describe how sedation boluses are administered, and to compare observed and nurse-reported practices.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a mixed methods study comprising 150 quantitative observations in a large university-affiliated ICU and 10 semi-structured interviews with nurses recruited in the same ICU and from others in the Province of Quebec (Canada).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>During 150 observations, nurses administered 197 boluses. Nurses mostly administered boluses with a volumetric pump (76 %, 95 %CI 69–81 %). In interviews, all nurses expressed favoring volumetric pumps to administer boluses. Nurses documented bolus use in 58 % of observations (58 %, 95 %CI 50–66 %). Propofol and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs, and all nurses reported that they were the “classic“ bolus drugs. The median cumulative propofol and opioid bolus doses given by nurses were respectively 30 mg (95 %CI 25–30), and 50 µg in fentanyl-equivalent (95 %CI 50–50). We observed that nursing or medical interventions were the most common trigger for bolus use (63 %, 95 %CI 55–71 %), and these were among the main reason for bolus use reported in interviews (n = 9, 90 %). Increasing norepinephrine was observed (19 %, 95 %CI 13–26 %) and reported by all nurses as the most frequent interventions after boluses.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Nurses favor volumetric pumps to administer boluses and propofol and fentanyl were the most used drugs. Documentation of boluses was suboptimal. Sedation boluses often led to norepinephrine titration.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for clinical practice</h3><div>Sedation boluses administered to patients with continuous infusions of sedations often led to norepinephrine titration, suggesting that they may have implications for patient safety and outcomes. Merging electronic health records entries and volumetric pump data logs or data feeds may be essential to properly capture the exposure of ICU patients to sedation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing\",\"volume\":\"87 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103958\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964339725000199\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964339725000199","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了更好地了解镇静对重症监护病房(ICU)的影响,准确了解镇静丸使用的临床实践至关重要。我们的主要目的是描述镇静丸是如何施用的,并比较观察到的和护士报告的做法。方法:我们进行了一项混合方法研究,包括在一所大型大学附属ICU进行150次定量观察,并对在该ICU招募的护士和加拿大魁北克省其他ICU招募的护士进行10次半结构化访谈。结果在150次观察中,护士给药197次。护士大多使用容积泵给药(76%,95%可信区间69 - 81%)。在访谈中,所有护士都表示赞成用容积泵给药。护士在58%的观察中记录了大剂量使用(58%,95% CI 50 - 66%)。异丙酚和芬太尼是最常用的药物,所有护士都报告说它们是“经典”的丸剂药物。护士给予异丙酚和阿片类药物的中位累积剂量分别为30 mg (95% CI 25-30)和芬太尼当量50µg (95% CI 50 - 50)。我们观察到,护理或医疗干预是最常见的大剂量使用的触发因素(63%,95% CI 55 - 71%),这些是访谈中报告的大剂量使用的主要原因(n = 9, 90%)。去甲肾上腺素升高(19%,95% CI 13 - 26%)是所有护士在大剂量服药后最常见的干预措施。结论护士倾向于容积泵给药,使用最多的药物是异丙酚和芬太尼。大剂量药物的记录不够理想。镇静丸常导致去甲肾上腺素滴定。对临床实践的影响持续输注镇静剂的患者给予镇静丸常常导致去甲肾上腺素的滴定,这表明它们可能对患者的安全性和结果有影响。合并电子健康记录条目和容积泵数据日志或数据馈送可能对于正确捕获ICU患者镇静暴露至关重要。
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
Understanding the use of sedation boluses in the intensive care unit: A mixed methods study

Background

To better understand the impact of sedations in the intensive care unit (ICU), an accurate understanding of the clinical practices surrounding sedation bolus use is essential.

Objectives

Our primary objectives were to describe how sedation boluses are administered, and to compare observed and nurse-reported practices.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods study comprising 150 quantitative observations in a large university-affiliated ICU and 10 semi-structured interviews with nurses recruited in the same ICU and from others in the Province of Quebec (Canada).

Results

During 150 observations, nurses administered 197 boluses. Nurses mostly administered boluses with a volumetric pump (76 %, 95 %CI 69–81 %). In interviews, all nurses expressed favoring volumetric pumps to administer boluses. Nurses documented bolus use in 58 % of observations (58 %, 95 %CI 50–66 %). Propofol and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs, and all nurses reported that they were the “classic“ bolus drugs. The median cumulative propofol and opioid bolus doses given by nurses were respectively 30 mg (95 %CI 25–30), and 50 µg in fentanyl-equivalent (95 %CI 50–50). We observed that nursing or medical interventions were the most common trigger for bolus use (63 %, 95 %CI 55–71 %), and these were among the main reason for bolus use reported in interviews (n = 9, 90 %). Increasing norepinephrine was observed (19 %, 95 %CI 13–26 %) and reported by all nurses as the most frequent interventions after boluses.

Conclusions

Nurses favor volumetric pumps to administer boluses and propofol and fentanyl were the most used drugs. Documentation of boluses was suboptimal. Sedation boluses often led to norepinephrine titration.

Implications for clinical practice

Sedation boluses administered to patients with continuous infusions of sedations often led to norepinephrine titration, suggesting that they may have implications for patient safety and outcomes. Merging electronic health records entries and volumetric pump data logs or data feeds may be essential to properly capture the exposure of ICU patients to sedation.
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
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
15.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The aims of Intensive and Critical Care Nursing are to promote excellence of care of critically ill patients by specialist nurses and their professional colleagues; to provide an international and interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and exchange of research findings, experience and ideas; to develop and enhance the knowledge, skills, attitudes and creative thinking essential to good critical care nursing practice. The journal publishes reviews, updates and feature articles in addition to original papers and significant preliminary communications. Articles may deal with any part of practice including relevant clinical, research, educational, psychological and technological aspects.
期刊最新文献
Understanding Delphi methodology – Part 3: Reporting standards, challenges, and biases Beyond communication: Integrating family and nurse perspectives on end-of-life care in the ICU – Letter on Palmryd et al. Fluid overload and competing risk: overlooked factors in ICU muscle ultrasound studies – Letter on Burgel et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for post-intensive care syndrome (PICS): concerns regarding scope, conceptual framing, and evidence base – Letter on Cai et al. Exploring the potential impact of real-time ventilation feedback on the quality of manual bag ventilation in routine ICU practice. The FEED-BAG study
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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