Physicians' Clinical Behavior During Fluid Evaluation Encounters.

fluid therapy resuscitation sepsis shock ultrasound

Journal

Critical care explorations
ISSN: 2639-8028
Titre abrégé: Crit Care Explor
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101746347

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Historique:
medline: 30 6 2023
pubmed: 30 6 2023
entrez: 30 6 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

We sought to identify factors affecting physicians' cognition and clinical behavior when evaluating patients that may need fluid therapy. Proponents of dynamic fluid responsiveness testing advocate measuring cardiac output or stroke volume after a maneuver to prove that further fluids will increase cardiac output. However, surveys suggest that fluid therapy in clinical practice is often given without prior responsiveness testing. Thematic analysis of face-to-face structured interviews. ICUs and medical-surgical wards in acute care hospitals. Intensivists and hospitalist physicians. None. We conducted 43 interviews with experienced physicians in 19 hospitals. Hospitalized patients with hypotension, tachycardia, oliguria, or elevated serum lactate are commonly seen by physicians who weigh the risks and benefits of more fluid therapy. Encounters are often with unfamiliar patients and evaluation and decisions are completed quickly without involving other physicians. Dynamic testing for fluid responsiveness is used much less often than static methods and fluid boluses are often ordered with no testing at all. This approach is rationalized by factors that discourage dynamic testing: unavailability of equipment, time to obtain test results, or lack of expertise in obtaining valid data. Two mental calculations are particularly influential: physicians' estimate of the base rate of fluid responsiveness (determined by physical examination, chart review, and previous responses to fluid boluses) and physicians' perception of patient harm if 500 or 1,000 mL fluid boluses are ordered. When the perception of harm is low, physicians use heuristics that rationalize skipping dynamic testing. Geographic limitation to hospitals in Minnesota, United States. If dynamic responsiveness testing is to be used more often in routine clinical practice, physicians must be more convinced of the benefits of dynamic testing, that they can obtain valid results quickly and believe that even small fluid boluses harm their patients.

Sections du résumé

We sought to identify factors affecting physicians' cognition and clinical behavior when evaluating patients that may need fluid therapy.
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Proponents of dynamic fluid responsiveness testing advocate measuring cardiac output or stroke volume after a maneuver to prove that further fluids will increase cardiac output. However, surveys suggest that fluid therapy in clinical practice is often given without prior responsiveness testing.
DESIGN METHODS
Thematic analysis of face-to-face structured interviews.
SETTING METHODS
ICUs and medical-surgical wards in acute care hospitals.
SUBJECTS METHODS
Intensivists and hospitalist physicians.
INTERVENTIONS METHODS
None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS RESULTS
We conducted 43 interviews with experienced physicians in 19 hospitals. Hospitalized patients with hypotension, tachycardia, oliguria, or elevated serum lactate are commonly seen by physicians who weigh the risks and benefits of more fluid therapy. Encounters are often with unfamiliar patients and evaluation and decisions are completed quickly without involving other physicians. Dynamic testing for fluid responsiveness is used much less often than static methods and fluid boluses are often ordered with no testing at all. This approach is rationalized by factors that discourage dynamic testing: unavailability of equipment, time to obtain test results, or lack of expertise in obtaining valid data. Two mental calculations are particularly influential: physicians' estimate of the base rate of fluid responsiveness (determined by physical examination, chart review, and previous responses to fluid boluses) and physicians' perception of patient harm if 500 or 1,000 mL fluid boluses are ordered. When the perception of harm is low, physicians use heuristics that rationalize skipping dynamic testing.
LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Geographic limitation to hospitals in Minnesota, United States.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
If dynamic responsiveness testing is to be used more often in routine clinical practice, physicians must be more convinced of the benefits of dynamic testing, that they can obtain valid results quickly and believe that even small fluid boluses harm their patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37387710
doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000933
pmc: PMC10306425
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e0933

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Références

J Crit Care. 2015 Feb;30(1):97-101
pubmed: 25269788
Chest. 2020 Oct;158(4):1431-1445
pubmed: 32353418
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Nov;113(5):740-7
pubmed: 25204700
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Feb;41(2):248-56
pubmed: 25447804
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1529-37
pubmed: 26162676
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014 Nov-Dec;46(5):361-80
pubmed: 25432556
Crit Care Med. 2011 Feb;39(2):259-65
pubmed: 20975548
World J Cardiol. 2014 Sep 26;6(9):1022-9
pubmed: 25276302
Ultrasound J. 2020 Apr 9;12(1):16
pubmed: 32270297
Ann Intensive Care. 2020 Aug 26;10(1):114
pubmed: 32845407
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Dec;40(12):1795-815
pubmed: 25392034
Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug;48(8):e684-e689
pubmed: 32697509
Crit Care. 2015 Jun 15;19:251
pubmed: 26073560
N Engl J Med. 2023 Feb 9;388(6):499-510
pubmed: 36688507
BMC Med. 2013 Mar 14;11:68
pubmed: 23496872
Crit Care Med. 2020 Oct;48(10):1436-1444
pubmed: 32618697
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):304-377
pubmed: 28101605
Crit Care Med. 2020 Jun;48(6):e440-e469
pubmed: 32224769
Crit Care. 2012 Oct 17;16(5):R197
pubmed: 23075459
N Engl J Med. 2022 Jun 30;386(26):2459-2470
pubmed: 35709019

Auteurs

Muhammad K Hayat Syed (MKH)

Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.

Kathryn Pendleton (K)

Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School. Minneapolis, MN.

John Park (J)

Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Craig Weinert (C)

Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School. Minneapolis, MN.

Classifications MeSH