ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Nurse-led evidence-based protocolized weaning for invasive mechanical ventilation patients in the ICU: a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. 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.
- Enhancing nurses' competence in mechanical ventilation: a quasi-experimental study and its association with patient severity using APACHE II.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Perspectives of intensive care professionals on extubation practices, causes of delays, and proposed solutions: A cross-sectional study.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProlonged invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) increases risks of complications and healthcare burdens. Protocol-directed weaning reduces IMV duration but faces implementation barriers. Nurse-led protocolized weaning (NLPW) offers promise, yet evidence on its effectiveness within specific healthcare contexts and systematic implementation processes remains limited.
objectivesThis hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study evaluated the clinical impact and feasibility of implementation of a structured NLPW program in a surgical ICU.
methodsA mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitative component: A quasi-experimental study with historical controls compared patient outcomes (weaning duration, IMV duration, ICU stay, 24-hours reintubation) before (May-Sep 2023, n = 147) and during (May-Aug 2024, n = 147) implementing an evidence-based NLPW program guided by the Knowledge-to-Action framework. Qualitative component: Semi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) identified implementation barriers and facilitators. Nurses' knowledge changes and protocol adherence were assessed.
resultsAmong 294 included patients (mean age 62.3 ± 17.8 years, 50.3% male), NLPW significantly reduced mean weaning duration (1.66 ± 0.92 vs. 2.8 ± 1.35 h; Δ = 1.2 h, P < 0.001) without increasing reintubation rates or shortening total IMV duration. Post-implementation, nurses' knowledge scores increased significantly (70.3 ± 7.6 to 83.5 ± 5.1; P < 0.05), and protocol adherence exceeded 95% for core process indicators. Qualitative analysis revealed three critical success factors: (1) individual behavioral changes, (2) optimization of nursing workflows, and (3) utilization of resources to support clinical practice.
conclusionsA theory-informed, NLPW program safely accelerated liberation from IMV in surgical ICU patients and enhanced nursing expertise. Successful implementation requires addressing contextual barriers through tailored training, workflow optimization, and resource support. NLPW represents a scalable strategy to standardize ventilator weaning, particularly in settings with limited respiratory therapy support. Future studies should evaluate long-term sustainability and generalizability across diverse ICU populations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.
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.