RESUMEN
Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an essential non-invasive oxygen therapy in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Despite its wide use, research assessing the knowledge, practice, and barriers to using HFNC among respiratory therapists (RT) is lacking. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among RTs in Saudi Arabia between December 19, 2022, and July 15, 2023. Data were analyzed as means and standard deviation or frequency and percentages. A Chi-square test was used to compare the differences between groups. Results: A total of 1001 RTs completed the online survey. Two-thirds of the respondents 659 (65.8%) had received training in using HFNC and 785 (78.4%) had used HFNC in clinical settings. The top conditions for HFNC indication were COVID-19 (78%), post-extubation (65%), and do-not-intubate patients (64%). Participants strongly agreed that helping maintain conversation and eating abilities (32.95%) and improving shortness of breath (34.1%) were advantages of HFNC. Surprisingly, 568 (57%) of RT staff did not follow a protocol for HFNC with ARDS patients. When starting HFNC, 40.2% of the participants started with FiO2 of 61% to 80%. Additionally, high percentages of RT staff started with a flow rate between 30 L/minute and 40 L/minute (40.6%) and a temperature of 37°C (57.7%). When weaning ARDS patients, 482 (48.1%) recommended first reducing gas flow by 5-10 L/minute every two to four hours. Moreover, 549 (54.8%) believed that ARDS patients could be disconnected from HFNC if they achieved a flow rate of <20 L/minute and FiO2 of <35%. Lack of knowledge was the most common challenge concerning HFNC implementation. Conclusion: The findings revealed nuanced applications marked by significant endorsement in certain clinical scenarios and a lack of protocol adherence, underscoring the need for uniform, evidence-based guidelines and enhanced training for RTs. Addressing these challenges is pivotal to optimizing the benefits of HFNC across varied clinical contexts.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the knowledge and current practice of using the airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) mode with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients and identify barriers to not using this mode of ventilation among nurses who work in critical areas in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: Between December 2022 and April 2023, a cross-sectional online survey was disseminated to nurses working in critical care areas in Saudi Arabia. The characteristics of the respondents were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Percentages and frequencies were used to report categorical variables. RESULTS: Overall, 1,002 nurses responded to the online survey, of whom 592 (59.1%) were female. Only 248 (24.7%) nurses had ever used APRV mode, whereas only 229 (22.8%) received training on APRV mode. Moreover, 602 (60.0%) nurses did not know whether APRV was utilized in their hospital. Additionally, 658 (65.6%) nurses did not know whether APRV mode was managed using a standard protocol. Prone positioning was the highest recommended intervention by 444 (43.8%) when a conventional MV failed to improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS. 323 (32.2%) respondents stated that the P-high should be set equal to the plateau pressure on a conventional ventilator, while 400 (39.9%) said that the P-low should match PEEP from a conventional ventilator. Almost half of the respondents (446, 44.5%) stated that the T-high should be set between 4 and 6 s, while 415 (41.4%) said that the T-low should be set at 0.4 to 0.8 s. Over half of the nurses (540, 53.9%) thought that the maximum allowed tidal volume during the release phase should be 4-6 ml/kg. Moreover, 475 (47.4%) believed that the maximum allowed P-high setting should be 35 cm H2O. One-third of the responders (329, 32.8%) stated that when weaning patients with ARDS while in APRV mode, the P-high should be reduced gradually to reach a target of 10 cm H2O. However, 444 (44.3%) thought that the T-high should be gradually increased to reach a target of 10 s. Half of the responders (556, 55.5%) felt that the criteria to switch the patient to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) were for the patient to have an FiO2 ≤ 0.4, P-high ≤ 10 cm H2O, and T-high ≥ 10 s. Lack of training was the most common barrier to not using APRV by 615 (61.4%). CONCLUSION: The majority of nurses who work in critical care units have not received sufficient training in APRV mode. A significant discrepancy was observed regarding the clinical application and management of APRV parameters. Inadequate training was the most frequently reported barrier to the use of APRV in patients with ARDS.
RESUMEN
Background: Limited data is available on awareness and clinical management of the airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) mode of ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients among physicians who work at in adult critical areas. This study aimed to assess the knowledge and current practice of using APRV mode with ARDS patients and identify barriers to not using this mode of ventilation among physicians who work in adult critical areas in Saudi Arabia. Methods: Between November 2022 and April 2023, a cross-sectional online survey was disseminated to physicians who work in adult critical areas in Saudi Arabia. The characteristics of the respondents were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Percentages and frequencies were used to report categorical variables. Results: Overall, 498 physicians responded to the online survey. All responders (498, 100 %) reported that APRV is indicated in patients with ARDS, but 260 (52.2 %) did not know if there was an institutionally approved APRV protocol. Prone positioning was the highest recommended intervention by 164 (33.0 %) when a conventional MV failed to improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS. 136 (27.3 %) responders stated that the P-high should be set equal to the plateau pressure on a conventional ventilator while 198 (39.8 %) said that P-low should be 0 cmH2O. Almost half of (229, 46.0 %) responders stated that the T-high should be set between 4 and 6 s, while 286 (57.4 %) said that the T-low should be set at 0.4-0.8 s. The maximum allowed tidal volume during the release phase should be 4-6 ml/kg. Moreover, just over half (257, 51.6 %) believed that the maximum allowed P-high setting should be 35 cmH2O. One third of the responders (171, 34.3 %) stated that when weaning patients with ARDS while in APRV mode, the P-high should be reduced gradually to reach a target of 10 cmH2O. However, 284 (36.9 %) thought that the T-high should be gradually increased to reach a target of 10 s. Most responders (331, 66.5 %) felt that the criteria to switch the patient to CPAP would be to have an FiO2 ≤ 0.4, P-high ≤10 cm H2O, and T-high ≥10 s. Lack of training has been the most common barrier to not using APRV by 388 (77.9 %). Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus on the use of APRV mode, probably due to several barriers. While there were some agreements on the management of ventilation and oxygenation, there were variations in the selection of the initial setting of APRV. Education, training, and the presence of standardized protocols may help to provide better management.
RESUMEN
Background: Nomophobia is common among students in many healthcare disciplines, and its association with academic performance has been explore before. However, there is no available data on its prevalence and association with academic performance among undergraduate physiotherapy (PT) students in Saudi Arabia. Methods: Between 22 December 2022 and 30 January 2023, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by dissemination using an online platform (Survey Monkey). Results: In total, 806 PT students, with males accounting for 494 (61%), responded to the survey. The prevalence of nomophobia among PT students was 98.4% (793). The mean (±SD) of the total NMP-Q items scores was 49 (±17), indicating a mild level of nomophobia. Female PT students had significantly higher nomophobia scores than the males (47 (39-65); 44 (38-52); (p < 0.001)). Non-smokers had significant higher nomophobia scores than smokers (46 (38-61); 44 (38-49); (p = 0.004)). Regarding grade point averages (GPA), the students with a GPA of less than 3.49 had the highest nomophobia score (51 (43-74); p <0.001)). Concerning the stage of their studies, bridging students had the highest nomophobia score (51 (34-76); p = 0.023)). Regarding academic warnings, those who reported no academic warnings had the highest nomophobia score (46 (42-50); p = 0.023)). Finally, regarding study hours, the students who spent ≥ five hours studying per week had the highest nomophobia score (54 (42-68); p < 0.001)). Conclusion: Nomophobia is common among PT students, with the majority experiencing a mild level. Being female, non-smoker, and having a higher academic performance were risk factors associated with higher nomophobia levels.
RESUMEN
Background: Nomophobia has been highly prevalent among health discipline students. However, there is no available data on the prevalence of nomophobia among respiratory therapy (RT) students in Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional survey using the nomophobia questionnaire (NMP-Q) was conducted and distributed using a convenience sample of RT students through an online platform (Survey Monkey) between September and November 2022. Results: Overall, 1428 RT students, with males accounting for 773 (54%), responded to the online survey. The prevalence of nomophobia among RT students was 97.3% (1390). The mean (±SD) of the total NMP-Q items scores was 62 (±22), indicating a moderate level of nomophobia among the RT students. Female RT students had significantly higher nomophobia scores than male RT students (63 (47-80) vs 59 (43-75); p <0.001)). Single RT students had significantly higher nomophobia scores than married RT students (62 (46-78) vs 46 (37-64); p <0.001)). RT students who were living outside the family home had significantly higher nomophobia scores than RT students who were living with their family (66 (54-78) vs 60 (44-77); p = 0.001)). RT students with a GPA of 4.50 to 5.00 had the highest nomophobia score (63 (46-79); p = 0.005)). RT students who were in their third year had the highest nomophobia score (66 (48-80); p <0.001)). RT students who reported no academic warnings had the highest nomophobia score (63 (48-80); p <0.001)). RT students who spent ≥ five hours studying per week had the highest nomophobia score (64 (51-80); p <0.001)). Conclusion: Nomophobia is common among RT students, with the majority experiencing a moderate level. Being female, single, living outside the family home, and having a higher academic performance were risk factors associated with higher nomophobia levels.