Cargando…

A Quality Improvement Evaluation of a Primary As-Needed Light Sedation Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults

OBJECTIVES: First, to implement successfully a light-sedation protocol, favoring initial as-needed (prioritizing as-needed) boluses over continuous infusion sedation, and second, to evaluate if this protocol was associated with differences in patient-level sedative requirements, clinical outcomes, a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Groetzinger, Lara M., Rivosecchi, Ryan M., McVerry, Bryan J., Smithburger, Pamela L., Lamberty, Phillip E., Donahoe, Michael P., Barbash, Ian J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7746207/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33354671
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000264
_version_ 1783624749071466496
author Groetzinger, Lara M.
Rivosecchi, Ryan M.
McVerry, Bryan J.
Smithburger, Pamela L.
Lamberty, Phillip E.
Donahoe, Michael P.
Barbash, Ian J.
author_facet Groetzinger, Lara M.
Rivosecchi, Ryan M.
McVerry, Bryan J.
Smithburger, Pamela L.
Lamberty, Phillip E.
Donahoe, Michael P.
Barbash, Ian J.
author_sort Groetzinger, Lara M.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: First, to implement successfully a light-sedation protocol, favoring initial as-needed (prioritizing as-needed) boluses over continuous infusion sedation, and second, to evaluate if this protocol was associated with differences in patient-level sedative requirements, clinical outcomes, and unit-level longitudinal changes in pharmacy charges for sedative medications. DESIGN: Retrospective review comparing patients who received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol to similar patients eligible for the prioritizing as-needed protocol but treated initially with continuous infusion sedation. SETTING: Thirty-two bed medical ICUs in a large academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 254 mechanical ventilated patients with a target Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale goal of 3 or 4 were evaluated over a 2-year period. Of the evaluable patients, 114 received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol and 140 received a primary continuous infusion approach. INTERVENTIONS: A multidisciplinary leadership team created and implemented a light-sedation protocol, focusing on avoiding initiation of continuous sedative infusions and prioritizing prioritizing as-needed sedation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: : Overall, 42% of patients in the prioritizing as-needed group never received continuous infusion sedation. Compared with the continuous infusion sedation group, patients treated with the prioritizing as-needed protocol received significantly less opioid, propofol, and benzodiazepine. Patients in the prioritizing as-needed group experienced less delirium, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and shorter ICU length of stay. Adverse events were similar between the two groups. At the unit level, protocol implementation was associated with reductions in the use of continuous infusion sedative medications. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation and use of a prioritizing as-needed protocol targeting light sedation appear to be safe and effective. These single-ICU retrospective findings require wider, prospective validation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7746207
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77462072020-12-21 A Quality Improvement Evaluation of a Primary As-Needed Light Sedation Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults Groetzinger, Lara M. Rivosecchi, Ryan M. McVerry, Bryan J. Smithburger, Pamela L. Lamberty, Phillip E. Donahoe, Michael P. Barbash, Ian J. Crit Care Explor Single-Center Quality Improvement Report OBJECTIVES: First, to implement successfully a light-sedation protocol, favoring initial as-needed (prioritizing as-needed) boluses over continuous infusion sedation, and second, to evaluate if this protocol was associated with differences in patient-level sedative requirements, clinical outcomes, and unit-level longitudinal changes in pharmacy charges for sedative medications. DESIGN: Retrospective review comparing patients who received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol to similar patients eligible for the prioritizing as-needed protocol but treated initially with continuous infusion sedation. SETTING: Thirty-two bed medical ICUs in a large academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 254 mechanical ventilated patients with a target Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale goal of 3 or 4 were evaluated over a 2-year period. Of the evaluable patients, 114 received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol and 140 received a primary continuous infusion approach. INTERVENTIONS: A multidisciplinary leadership team created and implemented a light-sedation protocol, focusing on avoiding initiation of continuous sedative infusions and prioritizing prioritizing as-needed sedation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: : Overall, 42% of patients in the prioritizing as-needed group never received continuous infusion sedation. Compared with the continuous infusion sedation group, patients treated with the prioritizing as-needed protocol received significantly less opioid, propofol, and benzodiazepine. Patients in the prioritizing as-needed group experienced less delirium, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and shorter ICU length of stay. Adverse events were similar between the two groups. At the unit level, protocol implementation was associated with reductions in the use of continuous infusion sedative medications. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation and use of a prioritizing as-needed protocol targeting light sedation appear to be safe and effective. These single-ICU retrospective findings require wider, prospective validation. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7746207/ /pubmed/33354671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000264 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Single-Center Quality Improvement Report
Groetzinger, Lara M.
Rivosecchi, Ryan M.
McVerry, Bryan J.
Smithburger, Pamela L.
Lamberty, Phillip E.
Donahoe, Michael P.
Barbash, Ian J.
A Quality Improvement Evaluation of a Primary As-Needed Light Sedation Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults
title A Quality Improvement Evaluation of a Primary As-Needed Light Sedation Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults
title_full A Quality Improvement Evaluation of a Primary As-Needed Light Sedation Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults
title_fullStr A Quality Improvement Evaluation of a Primary As-Needed Light Sedation Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults
title_full_unstemmed A Quality Improvement Evaluation of a Primary As-Needed Light Sedation Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults
title_short A Quality Improvement Evaluation of a Primary As-Needed Light Sedation Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults
title_sort quality improvement evaluation of a primary as-needed light sedation protocol in mechanically ventilated adults
topic Single-Center Quality Improvement Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7746207/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33354671
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000264
work_keys_str_mv AT groetzingerlaram aqualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT rivosecchiryanm aqualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT mcverrybryanj aqualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT smithburgerpamelal aqualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT lambertyphillipe aqualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT donahoemichaelp aqualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT barbashianj aqualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT groetzingerlaram qualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT rivosecchiryanm qualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT mcverrybryanj qualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT smithburgerpamelal qualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT lambertyphillipe qualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT donahoemichaelp qualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults
AT barbashianj qualityimprovementevaluationofaprimaryasneededlightsedationprotocolinmechanicallyventilatedadults