ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Quality improvement project to improve adherence to lung protective ventilation guidelines.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recorded body height and sex differences in lung-protective ventilation among adults with ARDS: an 11-year single-centre cohort study.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- Role of Attending Practice Variability in Prone Positioning Initiation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.CHEST critical care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLung protective ventilation (LPV) is advocated for all patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), for any duration of time, to prevent worsening lung injury. Previous studies proved simple interventions can increase awareness of LPV and disease pathophysiology as well as improve adherence to LPV guidelines.
objectiveTo assess the impact of a multi-component LPV quality improvement project (QIP) on adherence to LPV guidelines.
methodsTidal volume data for all patients requiring MV at a large, tertiary UK critical care unit were collected retrospectively over 3, 6 months, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles between September 2019 and August 2022. These cycles included the sequential implementation of LPV reports, bedside whiteboards and targeted education led by a multispecialty working group.
main outcome measureAdherence against predetermined targets of <5% of MV hours spent at >10 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) and >75% of MV hours spent <8 mL/kg PBW for all patients requiring MV.
results408 949 hours (17 040 days) of MV data were analysed. Improved LPV adherence was demonstrated throughout the QIP. During mandated MV, time spent >10 mL/kg PBW reduced from 7.65% of MV hours to 4.04% and time spent <8 mL/kg PBW improved from 68.86% of MV hours to 71.87% following the QIP. During spontaneous MV, adherence improved with a reduction in time spent >10 mL/kg PBW from baseline to completion (13.2% vs 6.75%) with increased time spent <8 mL/kg PBW (62.74% vs 72.25%). Despite demonstrating improvements in adherence, we were unable to achieve success in all our predetermined targets.
conclusionThis multicomponent intervention including the use of LPV reports, bedside whiteboards and education improves adherence to LPV guidelines. More robust data analysis of reasons for non-adherence to our predetermined targets is required to guide future interventions that may allow further improvement in adherence to LPV guidelines.
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.