Organizational factors associated with target sedation on the first 48 h of mechanical ventilation: an analysis of checklist-ICU database.
Adult
Aged
Brazil
Checklist
/ standards
Cohort Studies
Conscious Sedation
/ methods
Deep Sedation
/ methods
Female
Hospital Mortality
Humans
Hypnotics and Sedatives
/ adverse effects
Intensive Care Units
/ organization & administration
Length of Stay
Logistic Models
Male
Middle Aged
Organ Dysfunction Scores
Prospective Studies
Respiration, Artificial
/ methods
Simplified Acute Physiology Score
Conscious sedation
Critical care
Deep sedation
Mechanical ventilation
Outcome and process assessment
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jan 2019
29 Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
07
11
2018
accepted:
11
01
2019
entrez:
31
1
2019
pubmed:
31
1
2019
medline:
1
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although light sedation levels are associated with several beneficial outcomes for critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation, the majority of patients are still deeply sedated. Organizational factors may play a role on adherence to light sedation levels. We aimed to identify organizational factors associated with a moderate to light sedation target on the first 48 h of mechanical ventilation, as well as the association between early achievement of within-target sedation and mortality. This study is a secondary analysis of a multicenter two-phase study (prospective cohort followed by a cluster-randomized controlled trial) performed in 118 Brazilian ICUs. We included all critically ill patients who were on mechanical ventilation 48 h after ICU admission. A moderate to light level of sedation or being alert and calm (i.e., the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to 0) was the target for all patients on mechanical ventilation during the study period. We collected data on the type of hospital (public, private, profit and private, nonprofit), hospital teaching status, nursing and physician staffing, and presence of sedation, analgesia, and weaning protocols. We used multivariate random-effects regression with ICU and study phase as random-effects and correction for patients' Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment. We also performed a mediation analysis to explore whether sedation level was just a mediator of the association between organizational factors and mortality. We included 5719 patients. Only 1710 (29.9%) were on target sedation levels on day 2. Board-certified intensivists on the morning and afternoon shifts were associated with an adequate sedation level on day 2 (OR = 2.43; CI 95%, 1.09-5.38). Target sedation levels were associated with reduced hospital mortality (OR = 0.63; CI 95%, 0.55-0.72). Mediation analysis also suggested such an association, but did not suggest a relationship between the physician staffing model and hospital mortality. Board-certified intensivists on morning and afternoon shifts were associated with an increased number of patients achieving lighter sedation goals. These findings reinforce the importance of organizational factors, such as intensivists' presence, as a modifiable quality improvement target.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although light sedation levels are associated with several beneficial outcomes for critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation, the majority of patients are still deeply sedated. Organizational factors may play a role on adherence to light sedation levels. We aimed to identify organizational factors associated with a moderate to light sedation target on the first 48 h of mechanical ventilation, as well as the association between early achievement of within-target sedation and mortality.
METHODS
METHODS
This study is a secondary analysis of a multicenter two-phase study (prospective cohort followed by a cluster-randomized controlled trial) performed in 118 Brazilian ICUs. We included all critically ill patients who were on mechanical ventilation 48 h after ICU admission. A moderate to light level of sedation or being alert and calm (i.e., the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to 0) was the target for all patients on mechanical ventilation during the study period. We collected data on the type of hospital (public, private, profit and private, nonprofit), hospital teaching status, nursing and physician staffing, and presence of sedation, analgesia, and weaning protocols. We used multivariate random-effects regression with ICU and study phase as random-effects and correction for patients' Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment. We also performed a mediation analysis to explore whether sedation level was just a mediator of the association between organizational factors and mortality.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 5719 patients. Only 1710 (29.9%) were on target sedation levels on day 2. Board-certified intensivists on the morning and afternoon shifts were associated with an adequate sedation level on day 2 (OR = 2.43; CI 95%, 1.09-5.38). Target sedation levels were associated with reduced hospital mortality (OR = 0.63; CI 95%, 0.55-0.72). Mediation analysis also suggested such an association, but did not suggest a relationship between the physician staffing model and hospital mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Board-certified intensivists on morning and afternoon shifts were associated with an increased number of patients achieving lighter sedation goals. These findings reinforce the importance of organizational factors, such as intensivists' presence, as a modifiable quality improvement target.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30696474
doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2323-y
pii: 10.1186/s13054-019-2323-y
pmc: PMC6352335
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hypnotics and Sedatives
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34Références
N Engl J Med. 2000 May 18;342(20):1471-7
pubmed: 10816184
Crit Care Med. 2008 Feb;36(2):427-33
pubmed: 18091554
Crit Care Med. 2008 May;36(5):1444-50
pubmed: 18434914
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008 Jul;36(4):570-8
pubmed: 18714628
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Feb 22;170(4):369-76
pubmed: 20177041
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Oct 15;186(8):724-31
pubmed: 22859526
Ann Pharmacother. 2012 Oct;46(10):1331-9
pubmed: 22991132
JAMA. 2012 Nov 21;308(19):1985-92
pubmed: 23180503
Intensive Care Med. 2013 May;39(5):910-8
pubmed: 23344834
Crit Care. 2013 Apr 04;17(2):R63
pubmed: 23557378
JAMA. 2013 May 22;309(20):2121-9
pubmed: 23695482
Crit Care Med. 2013 Oct;41(10):2253-74
pubmed: 23921275
Crit Care. 2014 Jul 21;18(4):R156
pubmed: 25047960
Crit Care Med. 2015 Mar;43(3):519-26
pubmed: 25479111
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):379-89
pubmed: 25602358
Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 May;90(5):613-23
pubmed: 25865475
Crit Care. 2015 Apr 28;19:197
pubmed: 25928417
Implement Sci. 2015 Jan 13;10:8
pubmed: 25928627
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Dec;41(12):2149-60
pubmed: 26499477
JAMA. 2016 Apr 12;315(14):1480-90
pubmed: 27115264
Crit Care Med. 2016 Oct;44(10):e940-8
pubmed: 27347762
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177(3):388-396
pubmed: 28118657
Crit Care Med. 2017 Jun;45(6):949-955
pubmed: 28398923
Crit Care Med. 2017 Aug;45(8):1325-1336
pubmed: 28437376
Chest. 2017 Aug;152(2):304-311
pubmed: 28438605
Chest. 2017 Nov;152(5):963-971
pubmed: 28645462
Lancet Respir Med. 2017 Oct;5(10):795-805
pubmed: 28935558
Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar;46(3):471-479
pubmed: 29227367
Crit Care Med. 2018 Jun;46(6):850-859
pubmed: 29498938
Am J Med Qual. 2018 Nov/Dec;33(6):576-582
pubmed: 29590756
JAMA. 2018 Jul 24;320(4):345-346
pubmed: 30043043
Chest. 1998 Aug;114(2):541-8
pubmed: 9726743