Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Clinical practice, decision-making, and use of clinical decision support systems in invasive mechanical ventilation: a narrative review.
Murali, Mayur; Ni, Melody; Karbing, Dan S; Rees, Stephen E; Komorowski, Matthieu; Marshall, Dominic; Ramnarayan, Padmanabhan; Patel, Brijesh V.
Afiliação
  • Murali M; Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: m.murali@imperial.ac.uk.
  • Ni M; NIHR London In Vitro Diagnostics Cooperative, London, UK.
  • Karbing DS; Respiratory and Critical Care Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
  • Rees SE; Respiratory and Critical Care Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
  • Komorowski M; Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
  • Marshall D; Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
  • Ramnarayan P; Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Centre for Paediatrics and Child Health, London, UK.
  • Patel BV; Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Anaesthesia & Critical Care, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Br J Anaesth ; 133(1): 164-177, 2024 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38637268
ABSTRACT
Invasive mechanical ventilation is a key supportive therapy for patients on intensive care. There is increasing emphasis on personalised ventilation strategies. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been developed to support this. We conducted a narrative review to assess evidence that could inform device implementation. A search was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Role allocation is well described, with interprofessional collaboration dependent on culture, nursepatient ratio, the use of protocols, and perception of responsibility. There were no descriptions of process measures, quality metrics, or clinical workflow. Nurse-led weaning is well-described, with factors grouped by patient, nurse, and system. Physician-led weaning is heterogenous, guided by subjective and objective information, and 'gestalt'. No studies explored decision-making with CDSS. Several explored facilitators and barriers to implementation, grouped by clinician (facilitators confidence using CDSS, retaining decision-making ownership; barriers undermining clinician's role, ambiguity moving off protocol), intervention (facilitators user-friendly interface, ease of workflow integration, minimal training requirement; barriers increased documentation time), and organisation (facilitators system-level mandate; barriers poor communication, inconsistent training, lack of technical support). One study described factors that support CDSS implementation. There are gaps in our understanding of ventilation practice. A coordinated approach grounded in implementation science is required to support CDSS implementation. Future research should describe factors that guide clinical decision-making throughout mechanical ventilation, with and without CDSS, map clinical workflow, and devise implementation toolkits. Novel research design analogous to a learning organisation, that considers the commercial aspects of device design, is required.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article