ArticleCritical care explorations2023
Perspectives on Sedation Among Interdisciplinary Team Members in ICU: A Survey Study.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inter-rater Agreement of Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale Assessments in Adult Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU: A Cross-Sectional Study.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Creating a Culture of an Awake and Walking Intensive Care Unit: In-Hospital Strategies to Mitigate Post-Intensive Care Syndrome.Critical care clinics · 2025Review
- Sedation for Patients with Sepsis: Towards a Personalised Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the interdisciplinary team members' beliefs and attitudes about sedation when caring for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU.
designCross-sectional survey.
settingA 17-bed cardiothoracic ICU at a tertiary care academic hospital in Colorado. SUBJECTS: All nurses, physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), respiratory therapists, physical therapists (PTs), and occupational therapists (OTs) who work in the cardiothoracic ICU.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsWe modified a validated survey instrument to evaluate perspectives on sedation across members of the interdisciplinary ICU team. Survey responses were collected anonymously from 111 members (81% response rate). Respondents were predominantly female (70 [63%]). Most respondents across disciplines (94%) believed that their sedation practice made a difference in patients' outcomes. More nurses (48%), APPs (62%), and respiratory therapists (50%) believed that sedation could help alleviate the psychologic stress that patients experience on the ventilator than physicians (19%) and PTs/OTs (0%) (
conclusionsWe discovered significant interdisciplinary differences in the beliefs and attitudes regarding sedation use in the ICU. Since all ICU team members are involved in managing mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, aligning the mental models of sedation may be essential to enhance interprofessional collaboration and promote sedation best practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.