Conocimiento y habilidades de enfermeras y médicos en ventilación mecánica no invasiva: equipamiento e influencias contextuales / Nurses' and physicians' knowledge and skills in non-invasive ventilation: Equipment and contextual influences

Objetivos: Evaluar el conocimiento y habilidades de enfermeras y médicos en ventilación mecánica no invasiva en diferentes contextos: equipamiento e influencias contextuales. Método: Estudio descriptivo transversal en 4 unidades de cuidados intensivos (una quirúrgica, 3 polivalentes), una reanimación posquirúrgica, 2 áreas de urgencias y 3 salas de hospitalización, de 4 hospitales (3 universitarios y uno general) con 407 profesionales. Se administró una encuesta con 13 ítems, evaluando la validez del contenido (índice de Kappa 0,97 [95% IC: 0,965-0,975]). Resultados: Respondieron el 63,7% de las enfermeras y el 39% de los médicos. El porcentaje de respuestas correctas fue del 50%. Con una puntuación del 1 al 5, en la que a menor puntuación más conocimiento, las enfermeras puntuaron 3,27 ± 0,5 vs. 2,62 ± 0,5 los médicos (diferencia de la media 0,65 [IC 95%: 0,48-0,82; p < 0,001]). No hubo diferencias entre hospitales o unidades (p = 0,07 y p = 0,09). Un porcentaje notable de profesionales identificó como estrategia para mejorar la sincronización paciente-ventilador «tapar el puerto espiratorio» (fugas intencionadas) y apretar la máscara a la cara del paciente (fugas no intencionadas) (28,2% unidad de cuidados intensivos, 22,5% urgencias, 8,3% reanimación posquirúrgica, 61,5% hospitalización), sin diferencia entre enfermeras y médicos (27,9% vs. 23,4%, p = 0,6). El 50% de las enfermeras respondieron correctamente cómo seleccionar el tamaño adecuado de máscara y el 11,7% conocía que la máscara debe ajustarse permitiendo el paso de 2 dedos. Conclusiones: No hubo diferencias en el conocimiento por unidades entre enfermeras y médicos. La falta de conocimiento relacionada con la terapia de la ventilación mecánica no invasiva es dependiente de la formación recibida y del material disponible en la unidad. Para reducir la confusión entre fugas intencionadas y no intencionadas se recomienda usar un solo tipo de ventilador y mantener un entrenamiento regular de las enfermeras

Objectives: To assess non-invasive ventilation knowledge and skills among nurses and physicians in different contexts: equipment and contextual influences. Method: Cross-sectional, descriptive study in 4 intensive care units (ICU) (1 surgical, 3 medical-surgical), 1 postsurgical recovery unit, 2 emergency departments (ED) and 3 wards, in 4 hospitals (3 university, 1 community) with 407 professionals. A 13-item survey, validated in the setting, was applied (Kappa index, 0.97 (95% CI [.965-.975]). Results: Nurses (63.7% response); physicians (39% response). The overall percentage of correct responses was 50%. Scored from 1 to 5, with lower scores reflecting more knowledge, nurses scored 3.27 ±.5 vs 2.62 ±.5 physicians, respectively (mean difference,.65 (95% CI: .48-.82, P < .001). There were no differences between hospitals or units (P = .07 and P = .09). A notable percentage of respondents incorrectly identified the patient-ventilator synchronization strategy as "covering the expiratory port" (intentional leaks) and pressing the mask against the patient's face (unintentional leaks) (28.2% ICU, 22.5% ED, 8.3% postoperative resuscitation, 61.5% wards), with no difference between nurses and physicians (27.9% vs 23.4%, P = .6). Only 50% of nurse respondents correctly answered a question about measuring mask size and just 11.7% of the nurses knew the "2-finger fit" adjustment. Conclusions: There was no difference in nurses' and physicians' knowledge according to the setting studied. The lack of knowledge regarding NIV therapy depended on training received and material available. To reduce the existent confusion between intentional and nonintentional leak, the use of a single type of NIV supply and providing an appropriate level of training for nurses is recommended

Nurses' and physicians' knowledge and skills in non-invasive ventilation: Equipment and contextual influences. / Conocimiento y habilidades de enfermeras y médicos en ventilación mecánica no invasiva: equipamiento e influencias contextuales.

OBJECTIVES: To assess non-invasive ventilation knowledge and skills among nurses and physicians in different contexts: equipment and contextual influences. METHOD: Cross-sectional, descriptive study in 4 intensive care units (ICU) (1 surgical, 3 medical-surgical), 1 postsurgical recovery unit, 2 emergency departments (ED) and 3 wards, in 4 hospitals (3 university, 1 community) with 407 professionals. A 13-item survey, validated in the setting, was applied (Kappa index, 0.97 (95% CI [.965-.975]). RESULTS: Nurses (63.7% response); physicians (39% response). The overall percentage of correct responses was 50%. Scored from 1 to 5, with lower scores reflecting more knowledge, nurses scored 3.27±.5 vs 2.62±.5 physicians, respectively (mean difference,.65 (95% CI: .48-.82, P<.001). There were no differences between hospitals or units (P=.07 and P=.09). A notable percentage of respondents incorrectly identified the patient-ventilator synchronization strategy as "covering the expiratory port" (intentional leaks) and pressing the mask against the patient's face (unintentional leaks) (28.2% ICU, 22.5% ED, 8.3% postoperative resuscitation, 61.5% wards), with no difference between nurses and physicians (27.9% vs 23.4%, P=.6). Only 50% of nurse respondents correctly answered a question about measuring mask size and just 11.7% of the nurses knew the "2-finger fit" adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in nurses' and physicians' knowledge according to the setting studied. The lack of knowledge regarding NIV therapy depended on training received and material available. To reduce the existent confusion between intentional and nonintentional leak, the use of a single type of NIV supply and providing an appropriate level of training for nurses is recommended.