↓ Skip to main content

Effects of increasing compliance with minimal sedation on duration of mechanical ventilation: a quality improvement intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of increasing compliance with minimal sedation on duration of mechanical ventilation: a quality improvement intervention
Published in
Critical Care, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11335
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andre CKB Amaral, Lars Kure, Angie Jeffs

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: In the past two decades, healthcare adopted industrial strategies for process measurement and control. In the industry model, care is taken to avoid minimal deviations from a standard. In healthcare there is scarce data to support that a similar strategy can lead to better outcomes. Briefly, when compliance is high, further attempts to improve uptake of a process are seldom made. Our intensive care unit (ICU) improved the compliance with minimizing sedation from a high baseline of 80.4% (95% CI: 66.9 to 90.2) to 96.2% (95% CI: 95.2 to 97.0) 12 months after a quality improvement initiative. We sought to measure whether this minute improvement in compliance led to a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We collected data on compliance with the process during 12 months. A trained data collector abstracted data from charts every other day. Our database contains data for length of mechanical ventilation, mortality, type of admission, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II scores for the 12 months before and after the process improvement.To control for secular trends we used an interrupted-time series with adjustment for auto-correlation. We calculated the expected length of mechanical ventilation on each month by the end of the intervention period, and calculated the fitted value for the post-intervention months. RESULTS: We included 1556 patients. There was an immediate effect of the intervention (regression coefficient = -0.129, P value < 0.001) and the secular trend was a determinant of length of mechanical ventilation (regression coefficient = 0.010, P value = 0.004). The trend post-intervention was not significant (regression coefficient = 0.004, P value = 0.380).The relative change in the length of mechanical ventilation was 14.5% (IQR 13.8% to 15.8%) and the total expected decrease in mechanical ventilation days was 502.7 days (95% CI 300.9 to 729.1) over one year. CONCLUSIONS: In a system already working at high levels of compliance, outcomes can still be improved. Our intervention was successful in reducing the length of mechanical ventilation. ICUs should have a process of quality assurance in place to provide constant monitoring of key quality of care processes and correct deviations from the proposed standard.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 5%
France 1 3%
Unknown 34 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Other 6 16%
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 68%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2014.
All research outputs
#4,261,686
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,037
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,498
of 176,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#15
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 176,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.