ArticlePloS one2026
A rapid evaluation of quality of sedation and ventilation care processes for critically ill patients in Vietnam.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSedation assessment, spontaneous awakening and breathing trials are evidence-based practices which can minimise harm from ventilation and sedation of critically ill patients. There are known difficulties in implementing these processes which are likely to be exacerbated in low-resource settings. This study aimed to describe current delivery of these care processes in three intensive care units in Vietnam; identify barriers and facilitators to their delivery; and describe local capacity for improvement.
methodsWe conducted a prospective rapid evaluation between 01/11/2021 and 31/12/2023 comprising registry-enabled measurement of daily care processes, process mapping, observations, focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews and a structured assessment of local capacity for improvement. Contextual determinants of care quality were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Organisational capacity for improvement was analysed using the Model for Understanding Success in Quality.
resultsSedation was assessed qualitatively rather than using systematic tools. Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials were both performed according to individual doctors' clinical judgement in a non-protocolised manner. Barriers to delivering these processes included the lack of locally-adapted protocols, perceived safety concerns exacerbated by staffing shortages and lack of familiarity due to confusing terminology. Facilitators to improvement included quality improvement champions, registry-enabled audit and feedback, training, and partnerships within and between hospitals.
conclusionWe identified opportunities to improve sedation and ventilation in the three study settings in Vietnam. The barriers to delivering the care processes we studied echoed those reported in high-income countries, but were exacerbated by local contextual factors such as staffing shortages and differences in professional roles. We developed recommendations for future improvement projects: implementing setting-adapted protocols, standardising terminology to improve documentation, engaging clinical staff with feedback, identifying champions, educate staff regarding the clinical processes and quality improvement and leverage existing internal expertise. These recommendations may have applicability to other care processes and/or settings.
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.