ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2024
Experiential Learning with Ketamine: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study on Prescription and Perception.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Incorporating unfamiliar therapies into practice requires effective longitudinal learning and the optimal way to achieve this is debated. Though not a novel therapy, ketamine in critical care has a paucity of data and variable acceptance, with limited research describing intensivist perceptions and utilization. The Coronavirus-19 pandemic presented a particular crisis where providers rapidly adapted analgosedation strategies to achieve prolonged, deep sedation due to a surge of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Question: How does clinical experience with ketamine impact the perception and attitude of clinicians toward this therapy? Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study using quantitative ketamine prescription data and qualitative focus group data. We analyzed prescription patterns of ketamine in a tertiary academic ICU during two different time points: pre-COVID-19 (March 1-June 30, 2019) and during the COVID-19 surge (March 1-June 30, 2020). Two focus groups (FG) of critical care attendings were held, and data were analyzed using the Framework Method for content analysis. Results: Four-hundred forty-six medical ICU patients were mechanically ventilated (195 pre-COVID-19 and 251 during COVID-19). The COVID-19 population was more likely to receive ketamine (81[32.3%] vs 4 [2.1%], p < 0.001). Thirteen respondents participated across two FG sessions (Pre-COVID = 8, Post-COVID=5). The most prevalent attitude among our respondents was discomfort, with three key themes identified as follows: 1) lack of evidence regarding ketamine, 2) lack of personal experience, and 3) desire for more education and protocols. Conclusion: Despite a substantial increase in ketamine prescription during COVID-19, intensivists continued to feel discomfort with utilization. Factors contributing to this discomfort include a lack of evidence, a lack of experience, and a desire for more education and protocols. Increase in experience with ketamine alone was not sufficient to minimize provider discomfort. These findings should inform future curricula and call for process improvement to optimize continuing education.
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.