Quality improvement project to improve adherence to lung protective ventilation guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Lung protective ventilation (LPV) is advocated for all patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), for any duration of time, to prevent worsening lung injury. Previous studies proved simple interventions can increase awareness of LPV and disease pathophysiology as well as improve adherence to LPV guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a multi-component LPV quality improvement project (QIP) on adherence to LPV guidelines. METHODS: Tidal volume data for all patients requiring MV at a large, tertiary UK critical care unit were collected retrospectively over 3, 6 months, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles between September 2019 and August 2022. These cycles included the sequential implementation of LPV reports, bedside whiteboards and targeted education led by a multispecialty working group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adherence against predetermined targets of <5% of MV hours spent at >10 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) and >75% of MV hours spent <8 mL/kg PBW for all patients requiring MV. RESULTS: 408 949 hours (17 040 days) of MV data were analysed. Improved LPV adherence was demonstrated throughout the QIP. During mandated MV, time spent >10 mL/kg PBW reduced from 7.65% of MV hours to 4.04% and time spent <8 mL/kg PBW improved from 68.86% of MV hours to 71.87% following the QIP. During spontaneous MV, adherence improved with a reduction in time spent >10 mL/kg PBW from baseline to completion (13.2% vs 6.75%) with increased time spent <8 mL/kg PBW (62.74% vs 72.25%). Despite demonstrating improvements in adherence, we were unable to achieve success in all our predetermined targets. CONCLUSION: This multicomponent intervention including the use of LPV reports, bedside whiteboards and education improves adherence to LPV guidelines. More robust data analysis of reasons for non-adherence to our predetermined targets is required to guide future interventions that may allow further improvement in adherence to LPV guidelines.

Comparing rehabilitation outcomes for patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation during the first two waves of the pandemic: A service evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare rehabilitation outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated during wave 1 and 2, receiving two different models of physiotherapy delivery. METHODS: Adults admitted to the intensive care unit between October-March 2021 (wave 2) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated for >24 hours were included. During wave 2, rehabilitation was provided by physiotherapists over five days, with only emergency respiratory physiotherapy delivered at weekends. Rehabilitation status was measured daily using the Manchester Mobility Score to identify time taken to first mobilise and highest level of mobility achieved at ICU discharge. Outcomes were compared to data previously published from the same ICU during 'wave 1' (March-April 2020) when a seven-day rehabilitation physiotherapy service was provided. RESULTS: A total of n = 291 patients were included in analysis; 110 from wave 1, and 181 from wave 2. Patient characteristics and medical management were similar between waves. Mean ± SD time to first mobilise was slower in wave 2 (15 ± 11 days vs 14 ± 7 days), with overall mobility scores lower at both ICU (MMS 5 (Step transferring) vs MMS 4 (standing practice) (4), p < 0.05) and hospital (MMS 7 (Mobile > 30 m MMS) vs MMS 6 (Mobile < 30 m MMS), p < 0.0001) discharge. Significantly more patients in wave 2 required ongoing rehabilitation either at home or as an inpatient compared to wave 1 (81 % vs 49 %, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The change in physiotherapy staff provision from a seven-day rehabilitation service during wave 1 to a five day rehabilitation service with emergency respiratory physio only at weekends in wave 2 was associated with delayed time to first mobilise, lower levels of mobility at both intensive care unit and hospital discharge and higher requirement for ongoing rehabilitation at the point of hospital discharge.