Clinicians’ Perception of Head-of-Bed Elevation

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 164-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chad Hiner ◽  
Tomoyo Kasuya ◽  
Christine Cottingham ◽  
JoAnne Whitney

Background Head-of-bed elevation of 30° to 45° is important in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, but clinicians’ perception and determination of head-of-bed elevation are not widely reported.Objectives To (1) document the accuracy of clinicians’ perception of head-of-bed elevation, (2) document methods clinicians use to determine the head-of-bed angle, and (3) assess knowledge of recommended head-of-bed elevation.Methods Clinicians (n = 175) viewed a simulated patient with head of bed elevated 30° and elevation gauge concealed. They answered 3 questions: What is the level of the head of the bed? What head-of-bed elevation is associated with decreased incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia? When providing care, how do you routinely determine the head-of-bed elevation?Results Fifty percent of 89 registered nurses and 53% of 39 physicians identified head-of-bed elevation correctly (±5°). Head-of-bed elevation was perceived accurately by 86% of 21 respiratory therapists, 63% of 16 medical assistants, and 50% of 10 physical/occupational therapists. Ninety-five percent of nurses and respiratory therapists, 79% of physicians, 90% of physical/occupational therapists, and 46% of medical assistants correctly identified the head-of-bed angle associated with decreases in occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Techniques for determining the angle varied; 58% of respondents reported using the gauge.Conclusions Head-of-bed angle was perceived correctly by 50% to 86% of clinicians. Nurses tended to underestimate the angle, whereas other clinicians tended to overestimate. Nurses, respiratory therapists, and physical/occupational therapists showed the best understanding of the correct angle for minimizing occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Elevation gauges were most often used to determine the angle.

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 744-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Guterres da Silva ◽  
Raquel Kuerten de Salles ◽  
Eliane Regina Pereira do Nascimento ◽  
Kátia Cilene Godinho Bertoncello ◽  
Cibele D'Avila Kramer Cavalcanti

We aimed at evaluating compliance with a bundle to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in an Intensive Care Unit. It is a quantitative, descriptive and cross-sectional study, conducted in a public hospital in the state of Santa Catarina. Data were collected in July and August of 2012. The sample consisted of 1,146 observations of the four elements that compose the bundle (head of bed elevation between 30-45°; endotracheal suctioning; cuff pressure between 20-30 cmH2O; and oral care with 0.12% chlorhexidine). Expected compliance was equal to a positivity rate ≥80%. Data analysis revealed overall bundle compliance of 794 (69.2%). When analyzed separately, two practices presented expected compliance (84.7%): oral care and suctioning. Head of bed elevation had the lowest compliance (55.5%), followed by cuff pressure (61.8%). We observed the need for strategies that promote the quality of all the elements that compose the bundle in order for its use to be effective.


2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Kjonegaard ◽  
Willa Fields ◽  
Major L. King

Background Ventilator-associated pneumonia, a common complication of mechanical ventilation, could be reduced if health care workers implemented evidence-based practices that decrease the risk for this complication. Objectives To determine current practice and differences in practices between registered nurses and respiratory therapists in managing patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods A descriptive comparative design was used. A convenience sample of 41 registered nurses and 25 respiratory therapists who manage critical care patients treated with mechanical ventilation at Sharp Grossmont Hospital, La Mesa, California, completed a survey on suctioning techniques and airway management practices. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Results Significant differences existed between nurses and respiratory therapists for hyperoxygenation before suctioning (P =.03). In the 2 groups, nurses used the ventilator for hyper-oxygenation more often, and respiratory therapists used a bag-valve device more often (P =.03). Respiratory therapists instilled saline (P <.001) and rinsed the closed system with saline after suctioning (P =.003) more often than nurses did. Nurses suctioned oral secretions (P <.001) and the nose of orally intubated patients (P =.01), brushed patients’ teeth with a toothbrush (P<.001), and used oral swabs to clean the mouth (P <.001) more frequently than respiratory therapists did. Conclusion Nurses and respiratory therapists differed significantly in the management of patients receiving mechanical ventilation. To reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia, both nurses and respiratory therapists must be consistent in using best practices when managing patients treated with mechanical ventilation.


2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 228-240
Author(s):  
Karen L. Johnson ◽  
Tim Meyenburg

Prolonged bed rest is common in critically ill patients, and therapeutic positioning is important to prevent further complications and to improve patient outcomes. Nurses use therapeutic positioning to prevent complications of immobility. This article reviews therapeutic positions including stationary positions (supine, semirecumbent with head of bed elevation, lateral, and prone) and active repositioning (manual, continuous lateral rotation, and kinetic therapy). The physiological rationale and current evidence for each position are described. Applicable evidence-based practice guidelines are summarized. Special considerations for therapeutic positioning of critically ill obese and elderly patients are also discussed.


2022 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorraine Smith-MacDonald ◽  
Jaimie Lusk ◽  
Dayna Lee-Baggley ◽  
Katherine Bright ◽  
Alexa Laidlaw ◽  
...  

Introduction:In the context of the global pandemic of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare providers (HCPs) have experienced difficult moral and ethical dilemmas. Research is highlighting the importance of moral injury (MI)–a trauma syndrome related to transgressing personal morals and values–in understanding the psychological harm and occupational impairment experienced by HCPs. To date, MI treatments have largely been developed for military personnel and veterans and rely on in-person one-on-one psychotherapy.Purpose:This project aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of an evidence-informed online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based group therapy for MI in HCPs called “Accepting Moral Pain and Suffering for Healthcare Providers” (AMPS-HCP).Method:This feasibility and acceptability study included three separate phases with the first two phases focused on the development of the psychotherapeutic intervention and the third phase focused on the evaluation of the psychotherapeutic intervention. Eight participants (including registered nurses, practical nurses and respiratory therapists) completed seven 90-min sessions in an online group format. The focus of these sessions included ACT and MI psychoeducation and experientials. Qualitative semi-structured interview data was thematically analyzed while demographic and quantitative self-reported outcome data underwent descriptive analysis and non-parametric testing.Results:Results show that the intervention was highly feasible and acceptable to healthcare providers who worked on the frontline during COVID-19. Feasibility (referrals, eligibility, retention, participation engagement) was strong (8 out of 10 participants; 80% vs. desired >70% eligibility) and overall, 80% of participants completed 71% of the intervention. Data further supported the applicability and acceptability of the intervention. Preliminary data suggests that AMPS-HCP may supports HCPs to address MI.Discussion:This study is the first to report on the development and evaluation of an online MI group intervention for registered nurses, registered practical nurses, and respiratory therapists working during COVID-19. Results showed the use of both the online and group components of the intervention were acceptable and feasible during the third wave of COVID-19.


1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 513-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dina Brooks ◽  
Sherra Solway ◽  
Ian Graham ◽  
Laurie Downes ◽  
Margaret Carter

OBJECTIVE: To assess the current tracheal and oropharyngeal suctioning practice variability within and among the professions of physical therapy, respiratory therapy and nursing.DESIGN: A mail survey of physical therapists, respiratory therapists and registered nurses who perform suctioning. The survey instrument consisted of questions about professional characteristics, clinical suctioning practice and sociodemographics.SETTING: The survey was restricted to professionals practising within the province of Ontario.PARTICIPANTS: Random samples (n=448) were drawn from membership of the regulatory boards of all three professions.MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-eight per cent of respondents returned completed questionnaires. There was large variation in reports of gloving procedure (eg, double clean: 26% for physical therapists, 5% for respiratory therapists, 55% for registered nurses, P<0.0001) and technique of catheter use (sterile, inline or clean, P<0.01). There was also discrepancy in the techniques used to minimize harmful effects, ie, prelubrication with gel (83% for physical therapists, 54% for respiratory therapists, 17% for registered nurses, P<0.0001), use of hyperinflation (12% of physical therapists, 25% of respiratory therapists, 39% of registered nurses never hyperinflate) and use of instillation (7% of physical therapists, 0% of respiratory therapists, 19% of registered nurses never instill). However, there was agreement about the routine application of hyperoxygenation (74% or more) and there was almost perfect agreement (99% or more) within and across the three professions that secretion removal was the main indication for suctioning.CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate a wide variation in suctioning techniques among physical therapists, respiratory therapists and registered nurses. Comparisons among professions revealed inconsistencies in some areas, such as the use of in-line catheters, gloving procedures, prelubrication and hyperinflation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document