Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37810258›Full record

ArticleCHEST critical care2023

Adaptation and Uncertainty: A Qualitative Examination of Provider Experiences With Prone Positioning for Intubated Patients With COVID-19 ARDS.

Chad H Hochberg, Mary E Card, Bhavna Seth, David N Hager, Michelle N Eakin

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CHEST critical care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chad H HochbergDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Mary E CardDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Bhavna SethDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
David N HagerDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Michelle N EakinDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

MULTIDISCIPLINARY TRAINING PROGRAM IN LUNG DISEASEST32HL007534 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Nadia N Hansel, Larissa A. Shimoda · 1985 to 2026
$28.3M
A Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Implementation of Prone Positioning in COVID-19 ARDSF32HL160039 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HOCHBERG, CHAD · 2021 to 2022
$142k
NHLBI NIH HHS F32 HL160039NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007534
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProne positioning was widely adopted for use in patients with ARDS from COVID-19. However, proning was also delivered in ways that differed from historical evidence and practice. In implementation research, these changes are referred to as adaptations, and they occur constantly as evidence-based interventions are used in real-world practice. Adaptations can alter the delivered intervention, impacting patient and implementation outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have clinicians adapted prone positioning to COVID-19 ARDS, and what uncertainties remain regarding optimal proning use? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with ICU clinicians from two hospitals in Baltimore, MD, from February to July 2021. We interviewed physicians (MDs), registered nurses (RNs), respiratory therapists (RTs), advanced practice providers (APPs), and physical therapists (PTs) involved with proning mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. We used thematic analysis of interviews to classify proning adaptations and clinician uncertainties about best practice for prone positioning.

resultsForty ICU clinicians (12 MDs, 4 APPs, 12 RNs, 7 RTs, and 5 PTs) were interviewed. Clinicians described several adaptations to the practice of prone positioning, including earlier proning initiation, extended duration of proning sessions, and less use of concomitant neuromuscular blockade. Clinicians expressed uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of initiation and duration of prone positioning. This uncertainty was viewed as a driver of practice variation. Although prescribers intended to use less deep sedation and paralysis in proned patients compared with historical evidence and practice, this raised concerns regarding patient comfort and safety amongst RNs and RTs.

interpretationProne positioning in patients with COVID-19 ARDS has been adapted from historically described practice. Understanding the impact of these adaptations on patient and implementation outcomes and addressing clinician uncertainties are priority areas for future research to optimize the use of prone positioning.

Indexed as

acute respiratory distress syndromeCOVID-19implementation scienceprone position

Identifiers

PMID37810258
PMCPMC10560392
OpenAlexW4382678345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.