Reclaiming narratives of empowerment around Black maternal health: a strengths-based, community-informed focus group study.

OBJECTIVES: Research on Black maternal populations often focuses on deficits that can reinforce biases against Black individuals and communities. The research landscape must shift towards a strengths-based approach focused on the protective assets of Black individuals and communities to counteract bias. This study engaged the local Black community using a strengths-based approach to discuss the assets of Black maternal populations and to inform the design of a future clinical trial focused on reducing Black maternal health disparities. DESIGN: Guided by the Theory of Maternal Adaptive Capacity, we conducted three purposive focus group sessions with Black adult community members. The focus groups were semi-structured to cover specific topics, including the strengths of the local community, strengths specific to pregnant community members, how the strengths of community members can support pregnant individuals, and how the strengths of pregnant community members can facilitate a healthy pregnancy. The focus group interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Three focus group sessions were conducted with sixteen female individuals identifying as Black or African American. Central themes include (1) the power of pregnancy and motherhood in Black women, (2) challenging negative perceptions and media representation of Black mothers, (3) recognizing history and reclaiming cultural traditions surrounding birth, and (4) community as the foundation of Black motherhood. CONCLUSION: Black community members identified powerful themes on Black maternal health through a strengths-based lens. These focus groups fostered relationships with the Black community, elucidated possible solutions to improve Black women's health and wellness, and offered direction on our research design and intervention.

Design of Clinical Trials Evaluating Sedation in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation: Recommendations From Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research (SCEPTER) Recommendation III.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators. DESIGN: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.

Early Mobilization in a PICU: A Qualitative Sustainability Analysis of PICU Up!

OBJECTIVES: To identify staff-reported factors and perceptions that influenced implementation and sustainability of an early mobilization program (PICU Up!) in the PICU. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semistructured phone interviews to characterize interprofessional staff perspectives of the PICU Up! program. Following data saturation, thematic analysis was performed on interview transcripts. SETTING: Tertiary-care PICU in the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD. SUBJECTS: Interprofessional PICU staff. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-two staff members involved in PICU mobilization across multiple disciplines were interviewed. Three constructs emerged that reflected the different stages of PICU Up! program execution: 1) factors influencing the implementation process, 2) staff perceptions of PICU Up!, and 3) improvements in program integration. Themes were developed within these constructs, addressing facilitators for PICU Up! implementation, cultural changes for unitwide integration, positive impressions toward early mobility, barriers to program sustainability, and refinements for more robust staff and family engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Three years after implementation, PICU Up! remains well-received by staff, positively influencing role satisfaction and PICU team dynamics. Furthermore, patients and family members are perceived to be enthusiastic about mobility efforts, driving staff support. Through an ongoing focus on stakeholder buy-in, interprofessional engagement, and bundled care to promote mobility, the program has become part of the culture in the Johns Hopkins Hospital PICU. However, several barriers remain that prevent consistent execution of early mobility, including challenges with resource management, sedation decisions, and patient heterogeneity. Characterizing these staff perceptions can facilitate the development of solutions that use institutional strengths to grow and sustain PICU mobility initiatives.

Evaluation of the Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Timely Extubation of Critically Ill Adults: An Interprofessional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are an evidence-based way of identifying patients ready for mechanical ventilation (MV) liberation. Despite their effectiveness, global SBT performance rates remain suboptimal, and many patients who demonstrate the ability to breathe on their own remain on MV. The factors that influence clinicians' decision to discontinue MV following a successful SBT remain unclear. AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore the underlying causes of extubation delays in the intensive care unit (ICU) from an interprofessional perspective. METHODS: An exploratory, descriptive, cross-sectional design was used. An online survey was administered in December 2019 to clinicians practicing in three ICUs at a single medical center in the U.S. Survey questions focused on clinicians' perceptions of current MV liberation practices and perceived barriers or facilitators to timely extubation after a successful SBT. RESULTS: Of 425 eligible clinicians, 135 completed the survey (31.7% response rate). The majority of clinicians believed the current SBT and extubation process took too long (n = 108; 80.0%) and that this delay negatively affected patient outcomes. While professional groups differed in their rankings of importance, factors perceived to contribute to extubation delays most commonly included SBT timing, low provider confidence levels in making extubation decisions, and patient-specific factors. Potential strategies to overcome these barriers included developing an automated extubation protocol, performing SBTs when the provider responsible for final extubation decisions is physically present, and decreasing clinician perception of reprimand or condemnation for failed extubations. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: The MV liberation process is complex and dependent on the decisions of various ICU professionals. Clinicians perceive a number of potentially modifiable provider- and organizational-level factors that cause extubation delays in everyday practice. Understanding and addressing these barriers is essential for improving ICU quality and patient outcomes. Future research should explore the effect of nurse and respiratory therapist-driven extubation protocols on MV liberation rates.

Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults.

OBJECTIVE: Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: 68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS: 15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS: We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017. METHODS: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified. RESULTS: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Improving Health Care for Critically Ill Patients Using an Evidence-Based Collaborative Approach to ABCDEF Bundle Dissemination and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) often experience pain, oversedation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delirium, and weakness. These conditions are important in that they often lead to protracted physical, neurocognitive, and mental health sequelae now termed postintensive care syndrome. Changing current ICU practice will not only require the adoption of evidence-based interventions but the development of effective and reliable teams to support these new practices. OBJECTIVES: To build on the success of bundled care and bridge an ongoing evidence-practice gap, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) recently launched the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative. The Collaborative aimed to foster the bedside application of the SCCM's Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of the Collaborative, the evidence-based implementation strategies used to foster change and teamwork, and the performance and outcome metrics used to monitor progress. METHODS: Collaborative participants were required to attend four in-person meetings, monthly colearning calls, database training sessions, an e-Community listserv, and select in-person site visits. Teams submitted patient-level data and completed pre- and postimplementation questionnaires focused on the assessment of teamwork and collaboration, work environment, and overall ICU care. Faculty shared the evidence used to derive each bundle element as well as team-based implementation strategies for improvement and sustainment. RESULTS: Retention in the Collaborative was high, with 67 of 69 adult and eight of nine pediatric ICUs fully completing the program. Baseline and prospective data were collected on over 17,000 critically ill patients. A variety of evidence-based professional behavioral change interventions and novel implementation techniques were utilized and shared among Collaborative members. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Hospitals and health systems can use the Collaborative structure, strategies, and tools described in this paper to help successfully implement the ABCDEF bundle in their ICUs.

Adapting the ABCDEF Bundle to Meet the Needs of Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation in the Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Setting: Historical Perspectives and Practical Implications.

When robust clinical trials are lacking, clinicians are often forced to extrapolate safe and effective evidence-based interventions from one patient care setting to another. This article is about such an extrapolation from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) setting. Chronic critical illness is an emerging, disabling, costly, and yet relatively silent epidemic that is central to both of these settings. The number of chronically critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation is expected to reach unprecedented levels over the next decade. Despite the prevalence, numerous distressing symptoms, and exceptionally poor outcomes associated with chronic critical illness, to date there is very limited scientific evidence available to guide the care and management of this exceptionally vulnerable population, particularly in LTACHs. Recent studies conducted in the traditional ICU setting suggest interprofessional, multicomponent strategies aimed at effectively assessing, preventing, and managing pain, agitation, delirium, and weakness, such as the ABCDEF bundle, may play an important role in the recovery of the chronically critically ill. This article reviews what is known about the chronically critically ill, provide readers with some important historical perspectives on the ABCDEF bundle, and address some controversies and practical implications of adopting the ABCDEF bundle into the everyday care of patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation in the LTACH setting. We believe developing new and better ways of addressing both the science and organizational aspects of managing the common and distressing symptoms associated with chronic critical illness and prolonged mechanical ventilation will ultimately improve the quality of life for the many patients and families admitted to LTACHs annually.

The preventability of ventilator-associated events. The CDC Prevention Epicenters Wake Up and Breathe Collaborative.

RATIONALE: The CDC introduced ventilator-associated event (VAE) definitions in January 2013. Little is known about VAE prevention. We hypothesized that daily, coordinated spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) might prevent VAEs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the preventability of VAEs. METHODS: We nested a multicenter quality improvement collaborative within a prospective study of VAE surveillance among 20 intensive care units between November 2011 and May 2013. Twelve units joined the collaborative and implemented an opt-out protocol for nurses and respiratory therapists to perform paired daily SATs and SBTs. The remaining eight units conducted surveillance alone. We measured temporal trends in VAEs using generalized mixed effects regression models adjusted for patient-level unit, age, sex, reason for intubation, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and comorbidity index. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We tracked 5,164 consecutive episodes of mechanical ventilation: 3,425 in collaborative units and 1,739 in surveillance-only units. Within collaborative units, significant increases in SATs, SBTs, and percentage of SBTs performed without sedation were mirrored by significant decreases in duration of mechanical ventilation and hospital length-of-stay. There was no change in VAE risk per ventilator day but significant decreases in VAE risk per episode of mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.97) and infection-related ventilator-associated complications (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.71) but not pneumonias (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.19-1.3). Within surveillance-only units, there were no significant changes in SAT, SBT, or VAE rates. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced performance of paired, daily SATs and SBTs is associated with lower VAE rates. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01583413).

Understanding and reducing disability in older adults following critical illness.

OBJECTIVE: To review how disability can develop in older adults with critical illness and to explore ways to reduce long-term disability following critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar for studies reporting disability outcomes (i.e., activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, and mobility activities) and/or cognitive outcomes among patients treated in an ICU who were 65 years or older. We also reviewed the bibliographies of relevant citations to identify additional citations. STUDY SELECTION: We identified 19 studies evaluating disability outcomes in critically ill patients who were 65 years and older. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive epidemiologic data on disability after critical illness. DATA SYNTHESIS: Newly acquired disability in activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, and mobility activities was commonplace among older adults who survived a critical illness. Incident dementia and less severe cognitive impairment were also highly prevalent. Factors related to the acute critical illness, ICU practices, such as heavy sedation, physical restraints, and immobility, as well as aging physiology, and coexisting geriatric conditions can combine to result in these poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults who survive critical illness have physical and cognitive declines resulting in disability at greater rates than hospitalized, noncritically ill and community dwelling older adults. Interventions derived from widely available geriatric care models in use outside of the ICU, which address modifiable risk factors including immobility and delirium, are associated with improved functional and cognitive outcomes and can be used to complement ICU-focused models such as the ABCDEs.

A systematic review of implementation strategies for assessment, prevention, and management of ICU delirium and their effect on clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recommendations from professional societies and patient safety organizations, the majority of ICU patients worldwide are not routinely monitored for delirium, thus preventing timely prevention and management. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize what types of implementation strategies have been tested to improve ICU clinicians' ability to effectively assess, prevent and treat delirium and to evaluate the effect of these strategies on clinical outcomes. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL (January 2000 and April 2014) for studies on implementation strategies that included delirium-oriented interventions in adult ICU patients. Studies were suitable for inclusion if implementation strategies' efficacy, in terms of a clinical outcome, or process outcome was described. RESULTS: We included 21 studies, all including process measures, while 9 reported both process measures and clinical outcomes. Some individual strategies such as "audit and feedback" and "tailored interventions" may be important to establish clinical outcome improvements, but otherwise robust data on effectiveness of specific implementation strategies were scarce. Successful implementation interventions were frequently reported to change process measures, such as improvements in adherence to delirium screening with up to 92%, but relating process measures to outcome changes was generally not possible. In meta-analyses, reduced mortality and ICU length of stay reduction were statistically more likely with implementation programs that employed more (six or more) rather than less implementation strategies and when a framework was used that either integrated current evidence on pain, agitation and delirium management (PAD) or when a strategy of early awakening, breathing, delirium screening and early exercise (ABCDE bundle) was employed. Using implementation strategies aimed at organizational change, next to behavioral change, was also associated with reduced mortality. CONCLUSION: Our findings may indicate that multi-component implementation programs with a higher number of strategies targeting ICU delirium assessment, prevention and treatment and integrated within PAD or ABCDE bundle have the potential to improve clinical outcomes. However, prospective confirmation of these findings is needed to inform the most effective implementation practice with regard to integrated delirium management and such research should clearly delineate effective practice change from improvements in clinical outcomes.

Effectiveness and safety of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle.

OBJECTIVE: The debilitating and persistent effects of ICU-acquired delirium and weakness warrant testing of prevention strategies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of implementing the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle into everyday practice. DESIGN: Eighteen-month, prospective, cohort, before-after study conducted between November 2010 and May 2012. SETTING: Five adult ICUs, one step-down unit, and one oncology/hematology special care unit located in a 624-bed tertiary medical center. PATIENTS: Two hundred ninety-six patients (146 prebundle and 150 postbundle implementation), who are 19 years old or older, managed by the institutions' medical or surgical critical care service. INTERVENTIONS: Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For mechanically ventilated patients (n = 187), we examined the association between bundle implementation and ventilator-free days. For all patients, we used regression models to quantify the relationship between Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle implementation and the prevalence/duration of delirium and coma, early mobilization, mortality, time to discharge, and change in residence. Safety outcomes and bundle adherence were monitored. Patients in the postimplementation period spent three more days breathing without mechanical assistance than did those in the preimplementation period (median [interquartile range], 24 [7-26] vs 21 [0-25]; p = 0.04). After adjusting for age, sex, severity of illness, comorbidity, and mechanical ventilation status, patients managed with the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle experienced a near halving of the odds of delirium (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; p = 0.03) and increased odds of mobilizing out of bed at least once during an ICU stay (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.29-3.45; p = 0.003). No significant differences were noted in self-extubation or reintubation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill patients managed with the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle spent three more days breathing without assistance, experienced less delirium, and were more likely to be mobilized during their ICU stay than patients treated with usual care.

Nurse practitioner-led, virtually delivered, motivational enhancement and device support intervention to improve CPAP adherence: A feasibility randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy improves several important patient-centered outcomes. However, adherence to this safe and effective intervention remains poor. OBJECTIVES: Assess nine feasibility outcomes of a nurse practitioner-led, virtually delivered motivational enhancement and device support (MENDS) intervention to improve CPAP adherence in adults with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). Secondary aims compared the changes in CPAP adherence to patient-reported outcomes, patient activation, and perceived self-efficacy. METHODS: This two-group feasibility randomized controlled trial included 29 patients newly diagnosed with OSA and prescribed CPAP therapy. The study was conducted from July 2020 through December 2021 at a midwestern sleep/pulmonary clinic. Participants were randomized to the MENDS intervention group (n=14) (30-45 minute interactive tele-discussions on weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8) or to the usual care (n=15) group. Feasibility, patient-reported outcomes, and behavioral constructs were measured at baseline and 12 weeks. CPAP adherence was measured weekly. RESULTS: Feasibility of the MENDS sessions was demonstrated (56 sessions offered, 52 completed remotely without technical difficulties) with minimal participant attrition and no missing CPAP data. Generalized linear mixed models showed no statistically significant time-by-group interactions on adherence or patient-reported outcomes. Higher adherence and lower CPAP apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) scores were associated with declines in pre- to post-changes in fatigue and sleep disturbance. Lower CPAP AHI scores were associated with pre- to post-decreases in PROMIS Anxiety scores (r=.532, p=.005). CONCLUSION: The virtual MENDS intervention was feasible. Higher CPAP adherence and lower AHI levels led to positive improvements in fatigue, sleep disturbance, and anxiety.

Top 10 myths regarding sedation and delirium in the ICU.

The management of pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients can be complicated by multiple factors. Decisions to administer opioids, sedatives, and antipsychotic medications are frequently driven by a desire to facilitate patients' comfort and their tolerance of invasive procedures or other interventions within the ICU. Despite accumulating evidence supporting new strategies to optimize pain, sedation, and delirium practices in the ICU, many critical care practitioners continue to embrace false perceptions regarding appropriate management in these critically ill patients. This article explores these perceptions in more detail and offers new evidence-based strategies to help critical care practitioners better manage sedation and delirium, particularly in ICU patients.

Implementing the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle into everyday care: opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned for implementing the ICU Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: The awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle is an evidence-based interprofessional multicomponent strategy for minimizing sedative exposure, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and managing ICU-acquired delirium and weakness. The purpose of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers to awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle adoption and to evaluate the extent to which bundle implementation was effective, sustainable, and conducive to dissemination. DESIGN: Prospective, before-after, mixed-methods study. SETTING: Five adult ICUs, one step-down unit, and a special care unit located in a 624-bed academic medical center SUBJECTS: : Interprofessional ICU team members at participating institution. INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS: In collaboration with the participating institution, we developed, implemented, and refined an awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle policy. Over the course of an 18-month period, all ICU team members were offered the opportunity to participate in numerous multimodal educational efforts. Three focus group sessions, three online surveys, and one educational evaluation were administered in an attempt to identify facilitators and barriers to bundle adoption. MAIN RESULTS: Factors believed to facilitate bundle implementation included: 1) the performance of daily, interdisciplinary, rounds; 2) engagement of key implementation leaders; 3) sustained and diverse educational efforts; and 4) the bundle's quality and strength. Barriers identified included: 1) intervention-related issues (e.g., timing of trials, fear of adverse events), 2) communication and care coordination challenges, 3) knowledge deficits, 4) workload concerns, and 5) documentation burden. Despite these challenges, participants believed implementation ultimately benefited patients, improved interdisciplinary communication, and empowered nurses and other ICU team members. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of the implementation of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle in a tertiary care setting, clear factors were identified that both advanced and impeded adoption of this complex intervention that requires interprofessional education, coordination, and cooperation. Focusing on these factors preemptively should enable a more effective and lasting implementation of the bundle and better care for critically ill patients. Lessons learned from this study will also help healthcare providers optimize implementation of the recent ICU pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines, which has many similarities but also some important differences as compared with the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle.

Facilitators and challenges to conducting interdisciplinary research.

BACKGROUND: Complex, interconnected issues challenge the United States health care system and the patients and families it serves. System fragmentation, limited resources, rigid disciplinary boundaries, institutional culture, ineffective communication, and uncertainty surrounding health policy legislation are contributing to suboptimal care delivery and patient outcomes. METHODS: These problems are too complex to be solved by a single discipline. Interdisciplinary research affords the opportunity to examine and solve some of these problems from a more integrative perspective using innovative and rigorous methodological designs. RESULTS: In this paper, we explore lessons learned from exemplars funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Interdisciplinary Nursing Quality Research Initiative. DISCUSSION: The discussion is framed using an adaptation of the Interdisciplinary Research Model to evaluate improvements in individual health outcomes, health systems, and health policy. Barriers and facilitators to designing, conducting, and translating interdisciplinary research are discussed. Implications for health system and policy changes, including the need to provide funding mechanisms to implement interdisciplinary processes in both research and clinical practice, are provided.

Implementing the 2013 PAD guidelines: top ten points to consider.

It has been 10 years since the last publication of the clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium (PAD). The results of new studies have directed significant changes in critical care practice. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, the guidelines were revised, resulting in 32 recommendations and 22 summary statements. This article provides guidance toward guideline implementation strategies and outlines 10 key points to consider. Compared with its predecessor, the 2013 PAD guidelines are less prescriptive in that they recommend approaches to patient care rather than giving specific medication recommendations. This will help focus care teams on the process and structure of patient management and result in more flexibility when choosing specific medications. This article outlines approaches to guideline implementation that take into account the changes in philosophy surrounding medication selection. The manuscript focuses on the areas anticipated to generate the most change such as lighter sedation targets, avoidance of benzodiazepines, and early mobility. A gap analysis grid is provided. The release of any guideline should prompt reevaluation of current institutional practice standards. This manuscript uses the PAD guidelines as an example of how to approach the interprofessional work of guideline implementation.