Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Mechanical ventilation, weaning practices, and decision making in European PICUs

  • Lyvonne N. Tume*
  • , Martin C. J. Kneyber
  • , Bronagh Blackwood
  • , Louise Rose
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Objectives
This survey had three key objectives: 1) To describe responsibility for key ventilation and weaning decisions in European PICUs and explore variations across Europe; 2) To describe the use of protocols, spontaneous breathing trials, noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula use, and automated weaning systems; and 3) To describe nurse-to-patient staffing ratios and perceived nursing autonomy and influence over ventilation decision making.

Design
Cross-sectional electronic survey.

Setting
European PICUs.

Participants
Senior ICU nurse and physician from participating PICUs.

Interventions
None.

Measurements and Main Results
Response rate was 64% (65/102) representing 19 European countries. Determination of weaning failure was most commonly based on collaborative decision making (81% PICUs; 95% CI, 70-89%). Compared to this decision, selection of initial ventilator settings and weaning method was least likely to be collaborative (relative risk, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.47 and relative risk, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.32-0.45). Most PICUs (> 75%) enabled physicians in registrar (fellow) positions to have responsibility for key ventilation decisions. Availability of written guidelines/protocols for ventilation (31%), weaning (22%), and noninvasive ventilation (33%) was uncommon, whereas sedation protocols (66%) and sedation assessment tools (76%) were common. Availability of protocols was similar across European regions (all p > 0.05). High-flow nasal cannula (53%), noninvasive ventilation (52%) to avoid intubation, and spontaneous breathing trials (44%) were used in approximately half the PICUs greater than 50% of the time. A nurse-to-patient ratio of 1:2 was most frequent for invasively (50%) and noninvasively (70%) ventilated patients. Perceived nursing autonomy (median [interquartile range], 4 [2-6]) and influence (median [interquartile range], 7 [5-8]) for ventilation and weaning decisions varied across Europe (p = 0.007 and p = 0.01, respectively) and were highest in Northern European countries.

Conclusions
We found variability across European PICUs in interprofessional team involvement for ventilation decision making, nurse staffing, and perceived nursing autonomy and influence over decisions. Patterns of adoption of tools/adjuncts for weaning and sedation were similar.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e182-e188
JournalPediatric Critical Care Medicine
Volume18
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Apr 2017

Keywords

  • critically ill child
  • intensive care
  • mechanical ventilation
  • noninvasive ventilation
  • survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Mechanical ventilation, weaning practices, and decision making in European PICUs'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this