Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31129576›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Challenges and barriers to optimising sedation in intensive care: a qualitative study in eight Scottish intensive care units.

Kalliopi Kydonaki, Janet Hanley, Guro Huby, Jean Antonelli, Timothy Simon Walsh, Development and Evaluation of Strategies to Improve Sedation practice in inTensive care (DESIST) study investigators

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01634451 (Development and Evaluation of Strategies to Improve Sedation Quality in InTensive Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01634451 nacompletednot on this map

Development and Evaluation of Strategies to Improve Sedation Quality in InTensive Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of EdinburghRan2012 to 2014Enrolled1,637ConditionsCritical IllnessArmsBespoke on-line sedation education package, Sedation specific outcome process feedback, Responsiveness monitoring, novel sedation monitor
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit.Current anesthesiology reports · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kalliopi KydonakiSchool of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Janet HanleySchool of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Guro HubyFaculty of Health and Social Studies, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway.
Jean AntonelliDepartment of Anaesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Timothy Simon WalshDepartment of Anaesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Development and Evaluation of Strategies to Improve Sedation practice in inTensive care (DESIST) study investigators
Edinburgh Napier University · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBØstfold University College · NO

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZH/3/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesVarious strategies to promote light sedation are highly recommended in recent guidelines, as deep sedation is associated with suboptimum patient outcomes. Yet, the challenges met by clinicians in delivering high-quality analgosedation is rarely addressed. As part of the evaluation of a cluster-randomised quality improvement trial in eight Scottish intensive care units (ICUs), we aimed to understand the challenges to optimising sedation in the Scottish ICU settings prior to the trial. This article reports on the findings.

designA qualitative exploratory design: We conducted focus groups (FG) with clinicians during the preintervention period.

resultsThree themes emerged from the inductive analysis: (a) a recent shift in sedation practice, (b) uncertainty in decision-making and (c) system-level factors including the ICU environment, organisational factors and educational gaps. Clinicians were challenged daily to manage agitated or difficult-to-sedate patients in the era of a progressive mantra of 'just sedate less' imposed by the pain-agitation-delirium guidelines.

conclusionsThe current implementation of guidelines does not support behaviour change strategies to allow a patient-focused approach to sedation management, which obstructs optimum sedation-analgesia management. Recognition of the various challenges when mandating less sedation needs to be considered and novel sedation-analgesia strategies should allow a system-level approach to improve sedation-analgesia quality. DESIST REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01634451.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementCritical CareCritical Care NursingFocus GroupsHumansIntensive Care UnitsPhysical TherapistsPhysiciansProcedural SedationScotlandqualitative researchquality In health care

Identifiers

PMID31129576
PMCPMC6538047
OpenAlexW2945106297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.