Mapping the impact of ICU design on patients, families and the ICU team: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: Scoping review to map outcomes and describe effects of intensive care unit (ICU) design features on patients, family, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Iteratively developed search strategy executed across seven databases. We included studies (January 2007 to May 2020) exploring ICU design features using any study design. We grouped studies into 12 design features and categorized outcomes into four domains. RESULTS: Of 18,577 citations screened, 44 studies met inclusion criteria. Newly built or renovated ICUs/ICU rooms were evaluated in 27 (61%) studies; 17 (39%) evaluated existing designs/features. Most commonly evaluated design features were lighting (24, 55%), single vs multi-occupancy rooms/pods (17, 39%), and family-centered design (13, 30%). We identified 63 distinct outcomes in four domains; HCP-related (20, 45%); patient-related (20, 45%); family-related (11, 25%); and environment-related (7, 16%). Eleven (25%) studies measured patient/family-reported outcomes. In studies evaluating single occupancy rooms, three reported increased family satisfaction, two reported decreased delirium burden, while six reported negative consequences on HCP wellbeing and working. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating ICU design measure disparate outcomes. Few studies included patient/ family-reported outcomes; fewer measured objective environment characteristics. Single room layouts may benefit patients and family but contribute to adverse HCP-related outcomes.

Factors affecting the use of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in the adult critical care unit: a clinician survey.

BACKGROUND: Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) involves an intricate interaction between patient, clinician and technology. To improve our understanding of this complex intervention and to inform future trials, this survey aimed to examine clinician attitudes, beliefs and barriers to NAVA use in critically ill adults within an institution with significant NAVA experience. METHODS: A survey of nurses, doctors and physiotherapists in four Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of one UK university-affiliated hospital (75 NAVA equipped beds). The survey consisted of 39 mixed open and structured questions. The hospital had 8 years of NAVA experience prior to the survey. RESULTS: Of 466 distributed questionnaires, 301 (64.6%) were returned from 236 nurses (78.4%), 53 doctors (17.6%) and 12 physiotherapists (4.0%). Overall, 207/294 (70.4%) reported clinical experience. Most agreed that NAVA was safe (136/177, 76.8%) and clinically effective (99/176, 56.3%) and most perceived 'improved synchrony', 'improved comfort' and 'monitoring the diaphragm' to be key advantages of NAVA. 'Technical issues' (129/189, 68.3%) and 'NAVA signal problems' (94/180, 52.2%) were the most cited clinical disadvantage and cause of mode cross-over to Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV), respectively. Most perceived NAVA to be more difficult to use than PSV (105/174, 60.3%), although results were mixed when compared across different tasks. More participants preferred PSV to NAVA for initiating ventilator weaning (93/171 (54.4%) vs 29/171 (17.0%)). A key barrier to use and a consistent theme throughout was 'low confidence' in relation to NAVA use. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to broad clinician support for NAVA, this survey describes technical concerns, low confidence and a perception of difficulty above that associated with PSV. In this context, high-quality training and usage algorithms are critically important to the design and of future trials, to clinician acceptance and to the clinical implementation and future success of NAVA.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has yet to be demonstrated, and preliminary studies are required. The study aim was to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of NAVA versus pressure support ventilation (PSV) in critically ill adults at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV). METHODS: An open-label, parallel, feasibility RCT (n = 78) in four ICUs of one university-affiliated hospital. The primary outcome was mode adherence (percentage of time adherent to assigned mode), and protocol compliance (binary-≥ 65% mode adherence). Secondary exploratory outcomes included ventilator-free days (VFDs), sedation, and mortality. RESULTS: In the 72 participants who commenced weaning, median (95% CI) mode adherence was 83.1% (64.0-97.1%) and 100% (100-100%), and protocol compliance was 66.7% (50.3-80.0%) and 100% (89.0-100.0%) in the NAVA and PSV groups respectively. Secondary outcomes indicated more VFDs to D28 (median difference 3.0 days, 95% CI 0.0-11.0; p = 0.04) and fewer in-hospital deaths (relative risk 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9; p = 0.032) for NAVA. Although overall sedation was similar, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores were closer to zero in NAVA compared to PSV (p = 0.020). No significant differences were observed in duration of MV, ICU or hospital stay, or ICU, D28, and D90 mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility trial demonstrated good adherence to assigned ventilation mode and the ability to meet a priori protocol compliance criteria. Exploratory outcomes suggest some clinical benefit for NAVA compared to PSV. Clinical effectiveness trials of NAVA are potentially feasible and warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826890. Registered 9 April 2013.