Facilitators and barriers of appropriate and timely initiation of intravenous fluids in patients with sepsis in emergency departments: a consensus development Delphi study.
Journal
BMC nursing
ISSN: 1472-6955
Titre abrégé: BMC Nurs
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088683
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Oct 2023
27 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
18
08
2023
accepted:
13
10
2023
medline:
28
10
2023
pubmed:
28
10
2023
entrez:
27
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Sepsis is a life-threatening medical emergency in which appropriate and timely administration of intravenous fluids to patients with features of hypotension is critical to prevent multi-organ failure and subsequent death. However, compliance with recommended fluid administration is reported to be poor. There is a lack of consensus among emergency clinicians on some of the determinant factors influencing fluid administration in sepsis. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the level of consensus among key stakeholders in emergency departments regarding the facilitators, barriers, and strategies to improve fluid administration. The modified Delphi questionnaire with 23 statements exploring barriers, facilitators, and strategies to improve fluid administration was developed from the integration of findings from previous phases of the study involving emergency department clinicians. A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted among key stakeholders with managerial, educational, supervision and leadership responsibilities using a "Reactive Delphi technique" from March 2023 to June 2023. The statements were rated for importance on a 9-point Likert scale. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was used to identify the level of consensus (agreement/disagreement). Of the 21 panellists who completed Round 1 survey, 18 (86%) also completed Round 2. The panellists rated 9 out of 10 (90%) barriers, 3 out of 4 (75%) facilitators and all 9 (100%) improvement strategies as important. Out of the total 23 statements, 18 (78%) had agreement among the panellists. Incomplete vital signs at triage (Median = 9, IQR 7.25 to 9.00) as a barrier, awareness of importance of fluid administration in sepsis (Median = 9, IQR 8.00 to 9.00) as facilitator and provision of nurse-initiated intravenous fluids (Median = 9, IQR 8.00 to 9.00) as an improvement strategy were the highest rated statements. This is the first Delphi study identifying consensus on facilitators, barriers, and strategies to specifically improve intravenous fluid administration in sepsis in Australia. We identified 18 consensus-based factors associated with appropriate and timely administration of intravenous fluids in sepsis. This study offers empirical evidence to support the implementation of the identified strategies to improve patient outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Sepsis is a life-threatening medical emergency in which appropriate and timely administration of intravenous fluids to patients with features of hypotension is critical to prevent multi-organ failure and subsequent death. However, compliance with recommended fluid administration is reported to be poor. There is a lack of consensus among emergency clinicians on some of the determinant factors influencing fluid administration in sepsis. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the level of consensus among key stakeholders in emergency departments regarding the facilitators, barriers, and strategies to improve fluid administration.
METHODS
METHODS
The modified Delphi questionnaire with 23 statements exploring barriers, facilitators, and strategies to improve fluid administration was developed from the integration of findings from previous phases of the study involving emergency department clinicians. A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted among key stakeholders with managerial, educational, supervision and leadership responsibilities using a "Reactive Delphi technique" from March 2023 to June 2023. The statements were rated for importance on a 9-point Likert scale. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was used to identify the level of consensus (agreement/disagreement).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 21 panellists who completed Round 1 survey, 18 (86%) also completed Round 2. The panellists rated 9 out of 10 (90%) barriers, 3 out of 4 (75%) facilitators and all 9 (100%) improvement strategies as important. Out of the total 23 statements, 18 (78%) had agreement among the panellists. Incomplete vital signs at triage (Median = 9, IQR 7.25 to 9.00) as a barrier, awareness of importance of fluid administration in sepsis (Median = 9, IQR 8.00 to 9.00) as facilitator and provision of nurse-initiated intravenous fluids (Median = 9, IQR 8.00 to 9.00) as an improvement strategy were the highest rated statements.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first Delphi study identifying consensus on facilitators, barriers, and strategies to specifically improve intravenous fluid administration in sepsis in Australia. We identified 18 consensus-based factors associated with appropriate and timely administration of intravenous fluids in sepsis. This study offers empirical evidence to support the implementation of the identified strategies to improve patient outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37891553
doi: 10.1186/s12912-023-01561-w
pii: 10.1186/s12912-023-01561-w
pmc: PMC10604401
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
402Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377(5):414-417
pubmed: 28658587
Med J Aust. 2012 Feb 6;196:122-6
pubmed: 22304606
West J Emerg Med. 2013 Sep;14(5):453-60
pubmed: 24106542
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Crit Care. 2013 Oct 06;17(5):R224
pubmed: 24093643
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Nov;47(11):1181-1247
pubmed: 34599691
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Mar;17(3):238-43
pubmed: 20370755
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Nurs Res. 1997 Mar-Apr;46(2):116-8
pubmed: 9105336
Chest. 2018 Jan;153(1):39-45
pubmed: 28987477
JAMA. 2014 Apr 2;311(13):1308-16
pubmed: 24638143
Med J Aust. 2006 Mar 6;184(5):208-12
pubmed: 16515429
Int Emerg Nurs. 2023 Jul;69:101317
pubmed: 37348242
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
J Adv Nurs. 1994 Jun;19(6):1221-5
pubmed: 7930104
BMC Emerg Med. 2017 Aug 30;17(1):27
pubmed: 28854874
BMC Emerg Med. 2022 Jun 3;22(1):98
pubmed: 35659554
Collegian. 2014;21(4):359-66
pubmed: 25632734
Int Emerg Nurs. 2008 Oct;16(4):250-6
pubmed: 18929343
J Nurs Care Qual. 2018 Oct/Dec;33(4):375-381
pubmed: 29319593
Shock. 2012 Nov;38(5):474-9
pubmed: 23042195
Int J Nurs Stud. 1993 Jun;30(3):227-37
pubmed: 8335432
Ann Emerg Med. 2002 Mar;39(3):223-32
pubmed: 11867973
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Jan 29;11(3):
pubmed: 36766963
J Emerg Nurs. 2015 Mar;41(2):130-7
pubmed: 25612516