Implementation of Lung-Protective Ventilation in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVES: We implemented a computerized protocol for low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) to improve management and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with, and without, the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Pragmatic, nonrandomized stepped wedge type II hybrid implementation/effectiveness trial. SETTING: Twelve hospitals in an integrated healthcare system over a 2-year period. PATIENTS: Patients greater than or equal to 18 years old who had initiation of mechanical ventilation in the emergency department or ICU. We excluded patients who died or transitioned to comfort care on the day of admission to the ICU. We defined a subgroup of patients with ARDS for analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation of ventilator protocols for LTVV in the ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Our primary clinical outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) to day 28. Our primary process outcome was median initial set tidal volume. We included 8,692 mechanically ventilated patients, 3,282 (38%) of whom had ARDS. After implementation, set tidal volume reported as mL/kg predicted body weight decreased from median 6.1 mL/kg (interquartile range [IQR], 6.0-6.8 mL/kg) to 6.0 mL/kg (IQR, 6.0-6.6 mL/kg) ( p = 0.009). The percent of patients receiving LTVV (tidal volume ≤ 6.5 mL/kg) increased from 69.8% ( n = 1,721) to 72.5% ( n = 1,846) ( p = 0.036) after implementation. The percent of patients receiving greater than 8 mL/kg initial set tidal volume was reduced from 9.0% ( n = 222) to 6.7% ( n = 174) ( p = 0.005) after implementation. Among patients with ARDS, day 1 positive end-expiratory pressure increased from 6.7 to 8.0 cm H 2 O ( p < 0.001). We observed no difference in VFD (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.24; p = 0.44), or in secondary outcomes of length of stay or mortality, either within the main cohort or the subgroup of patients with ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: We observed improved adherence to optimal ventilator management with implementation of a computerized protocol and reduction in the number of patients receiving tidal volumes greater than 8 mL/kg. We did not observe improvement in clinical outcomes.

An alert tool to promote lung protective ventilation for possible acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Objective: Computer-aided decision tools may speed recognition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and promote consistent, timely treatment using lung-protective ventilation (LPV). This study evaluated implementation and service (process) outcomes with deployment and use of a clinical decision support (CDS) synchronous alert tool associated with existing computerized ventilator protocols and targeted patients with possible ARDS not receiving LPV. Materials and Methods: We performed an explanatory mixed methods study from December 2019 to November 2020 to evaluate CDS alert implementation outcomes across 13 intensive care units (ICU) in an integrated healthcare system with >4000 mechanically ventilated patients annually. We utilized quantitative methods to measure service outcomes including CDS alert tool utilization, accuracy, and implementation effectiveness. Attitudes regarding the appropriateness and acceptability of the CDS tool were assessed via an electronic field survey of physicians and advanced practice providers. Results: Thirty-eight percent of study encounters had at least one episode of LPV nonadherence. Addition of LPV treatment detection logic prevented an estimated 1812 alert messages (41%) over use of disease detection logic alone. Forty-eight percent of alert recommendations were implemented within 2 h. Alert accuracy was estimated at 63% when compared to gold standard ARDS adjudication, with sensitivity of 85% and positive predictive value of 62%. Fifty-seven percent of survey respondents observed one or more benefits associated with the alert. Conclusion: Introduction of a CDS alert tool based upon ARDS risk factors and integrated with computerized ventilator protocol instructions increased visibility to gaps in LPV use and promoted increased adherence to LPV.

Multi-factorial barriers and facilitators to high adherence to lung-protective ventilation using a computerized protocol: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) improves outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) through the administration of low tidal volumes (≤ 6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) with co-titration of positive end-expiratory pressure and fraction of inspired oxygen. Many patients with ARDS, however, are not managed with LPV. The purpose of this study was to understand the implementation barriers and facilitators to the use of LPV and a computerized LPV clinical decision support (CDS) tool in intensive care units (ICUs) in preparation for a pilot hybrid implementation-effectiveness clinical trial. METHODS: We performed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study from June 2018 to March 2019 to evaluate the variation in LPV adherence across 17 ICUs in an integrated healthcare system with > 4000 mechanically ventilated patients annually. We analyzed 47 key informant interviews of ICU physicians, respiratory therapists (RTs), and nurses in 3 of the ICUs using a qualitative content analysis paradigm to investigate site variation as defined by adherence level (low, medium, high) and to identify barriers and facilitators to LPV and LPV CDS tool use. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of patients had an initial set tidal volume of ≤ 6.5 ml/kg PBW during the measurement period (site range 21-80%). LPV CDS tool use was 28% (site range 6-91%). This study's main findings revealed multi-factorial facilitators and barriers to use that varied by ICU site adherence level. The primary facilitator was that LPV and the LPV CDS tool could be used on all mechanically ventilated patients. Barriers included a persistent gap between clinician attitudes regarding the use of LPV and actual use, the perceived loss of autonomy associated with using a computerized protocol, the nature of physician-RT interaction in ventilation management, and the lack of clear organization measures of success. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in adherence to LPV persists in ICUs within a healthcare delivery system that was an early adopter of LPV. Potentially promising strategies to increase adherence to LPV and the LPV CDS tool for ARDS patients include initiating low tidal ventilation on all mechanically ventilated patients, establishing and measuring adherence measures, and focused education addressing the physician-RT interaction. These strategies represent a blueprint for a future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial.