IntroductionOptimal management of mechanical ventilation and weaning requires dynamic and collaborative decision making to minimize complications and avoid delays in the transition to extubation. In the absence of collaboration, ventilation decision making may be fragmented, inconsistent, and delayed. Our objective was to describe the professional group with responsibility for key ventilation and weaning decisions and to examine organizational characteristics associated with nurse involvement.MethodsA multi-center, cross-sectional, self-administered survey was sent to nurse managers of adult intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands and United Kingdom (UK). We summarized data as proportions (95% confidence intervals (CIs)) and calculated odds ratios (OR) to examine ICU organizational variables associated with collaborative decision making.ResultsResponse rates ranged from 39% (UK) to 92% (Switzerland), providing surveys from 586 ICUs. Interprofessional collaboration (nurses and physicians) was the most common approach to initial selection of ventilator settings (63% (95% CI 59 to 66)), determination of extubation readiness (71% (67 to 75)), weaning method (73% (69 to 76)), recognition of weaning failure (84% (81 to 87)) and weaning readiness (85% (82 to 87)), and titration of ventilator settings (88% (86 to 91)). A nurse-to-patient ratio other than 1:1 was associated with decreased interprofessional collaboration during titration of ventilator settings (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6), weaning method (0.4 (0.2 to 0.9)), determination of extubation readiness (0.5 (0.2 to 0.9)) and weaning failure (0.4 (0.1 to 1.0)). Use of a weaning protocol was associated with increased collaborative decision making for determining weaning (1.8 (1.0 to 3.3)) and extubation readiness (1.9 (1.2 to 3.0)), and weaning method (1.8 (1.1 to 3.0). Country of ICU location influenced the profile of responsibility for all decisions. Automated weaning modes were used in 55% of ICUs.ConclusionsCollaborative decision making for ventilation and weaning was employed in most ICUs in all countries although this was influenced by nurse-to-patient ratio, presence of a protocol, and varied across countries. Potential clinical implications of a lack of collaboration include delayed adaptation of ventilation to changing physiological parameters, and delayed recognition of weaning and extubation readiness resulting in unnecessary prolongation of ventilation.

Background: Dysphagia occurs commonly in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite the clinical relevance, there is little worldwide research on prevention, assessment, evaluation, and/or treatment of dysphagia for ICU patients. We aimed to gain insight into this international knowledge gap. Methods:We conducted a multi-center, international online cross-sectional survey of adult ICUs. Local survey distribution champions were recruited through professional and personal networks. The survey was administered from November 2017 to June 2019 with three email and a final telephone reminder. Results:Responses were received from 746 ICUs (26 countries). In patients intubated >48 hours, 17% expected a >50% chance that dysphagia would develop. This proportion increased to 43% in patients intubated >7 days, and to 52% in tracheotomized patients. Speech-language pathologist (SLP) consultation was available in 66% of ICUs, only 4% reported a dedicated SLP.Although 66% considered a routine post-extubation dysphagia protocol important, most (67%) did not have a protocol. Few ICUs routinely assessed for dysphagia after 48 hours intubation (30%) or tracheostomy (41%). A large proportion (46%) used water swallow screening tests to determine aspiration, few (8%) used instrumental assessments (i.e., flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing). Swallowing exercises were used for dysphagia management by 30% of ICUs.Conclusions: There seems to be limited awareness among ICU practioners that patients are at risk of dysphagia, particularly as ventilation persists, protocols, routine assessment and instrumental assessments are generally not used. We recommend the development of a research agenda to increase the quality of evidence and ameliorate the implementation of evidence-based dysphagia protocols by dedicated SLPs.

We found variation in sleep promotion interventions across European regions with few ICUs using sleep assessment questionnaires or sleep promoting protocols. However, many ICUs perceive implementation of sleep protocols important, particularly those in central Europe.