Search

Introduction: Hypoxaemic respiratory failure (HRF) affects nearly 15% of critically ill adults admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). An evidence-based, stakeholder-informed multidisciplinary care pathway ( Venting Wisely ) was created to standardise the diagnosis and management of patients with HRF and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Successful adherence to the pathway requires a coordinated team-based approach by the clinician team. The overall aim of this study is to describe the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway among critical care clinicians. Specifically, this will allow us to (1) better understand the user's experience with the intervention and (2) determine if the intervention was delivered as intended., Methods and Analysis: This qualitative study will conduct focus groups with nurse practitioners, physicians, registered nurses and registered respiratory therapists from 17 Alberta ICUs. We will use template analysis to describe the acceptability of a multicomponent care pathway according to seven constructs of acceptability: (1) affective attitude;,(2) burden, (3) ethicality, (4) intervention coherence, (5) opportunity costs, (6) perceived effectiveness and (7) self-efficacy. This study will contribute to a better understanding of the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway. Identification of areas of poor acceptability will be used to refine the pathway and implementation strategies as ways to improve adherence to the pathway and promote its sustainability., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a scientific conference., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04744298., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare they have no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an intervention used in critically ill patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure that is expensive and resource intensive and requires specialised care. There remains a significant practice variation in its application. This systematic review will assess the evidence for key performance indicators (KPIs) in ECMO., Methods and Analysis: We will search Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and databases from the National Information Center of Health Services Research and Health Care Technology, for studies involving KPIs in ECMO. We will rate methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and qualitative studies will be evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN checklist). Grey literature sources will be searched for technical reports, practice guidelines and conference proceedings. We will identify relevant organisations, industry leaders and non-profit organisations that represent key opinion leads in the use of ECMO. We will search the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality National Quality Measures Clearinghouse for ECMO-related KPIs. Studies will be included if they contain quality measures that occur in critically ill patients and are associated with ECMO. The analysis will be primarily descriptive. Each KPI will be evaluated for importance, scientific acceptability, utility and feasibility using the four criteria proposed by the US Strategic Framework Board for a National Quality Measurement and Reporting System. Finally, KPIs will be evaluated for their potential operational characteristics, their potential to be integrated into electronic medical records and their affordability, if applicable., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at academic., Prospero Registration Number: 9 August 2022. CRD42022349910., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EF has consulted and received honoraria from ALung Technologies, Baxter, Inspira, Vasomune, Aerogen and GE Healthcare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)