A Survey on the Current Status of Adult External Ventricular Drainage Care: Exploring Content Framework and the Need for Group Standards.

Background: External ventricular drainage (EVD), a widely used clinical procedure, faces slow translation of knowledge into practice due to practical barriers. The scarcity of high-quality data in the past EVD management and neurocritical care research compounds the challenge. Objective: This study aims to investigate the current status of adult external ventricular drainage care among neurosurgical nurses, delineate nursing priorities and challenges, and explore the necessity for establishing standardized guidelines for external ventricular drainage care. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify existing clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, evidence summaries, and expert consensus on adult external ventricular drainage care. We developed an electronic questionnaire titled "Survey on the Current Status of Adult External Ventricular Drainage Care" based on our search results. We distributed it to certified registered neurosurgical nurses working in the top 20 neurosurgery hospitals, per the 2022 Fudan Hospital Ranking published by the Institute of Hospital Management at Fudan University. Results: Effective control of drainage speed and total volume is a crucial aspect of nursing care. Existing guidelines primarily emphasize infection prevention in the context of complication care. However, it was observed that nursing staff exhibited limited knowledge concerning the total volume (58.7%) and rate of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (50.8%), as well as the management of complications (56.7%). Factors influencing the extent of nursing knowledge related to external ventricular drainage care include levels of education (P = .022), professional titles (P = .004), department assignments (P < .001), and the completion of relevant training (P = .01). Conclusions: Establishing standardized guidelines for external ventricular drainage care is imperative to bridge the gap between existing evidence and clinical practice.