Purpose Use of sedation protocols is associated with fewer mechanical ventilation days in critically ill patients. Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) often have a higher nurse–patient ratio and more specialised training of ICU nurses than French ICUs. Considering these differences, the purpose of this study was to compare implementation of sedation protocols as indicated by frequency of sedation assessment and response to levels of sedation between a Canadian and a French ICU.
Methods This was a retrospective observational study of 30 patients who were mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h in each of two tertiary care ICUs in Vancouver, Canada and Montpellier, France. The authors tabulated all Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale scores, frequency of score measurement, target scores, frequency and magnitude of scores that were out of target range, and the response to these scores within 1 h of measurement. Practices between the two hospitals were compared using regression modelling, adjusting for patient age, sex, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score.
Results Although sedation scores were measured more frequently in the Canadian ICU, there were fewer appropriate adjustments in medications in response to scores that were outside the target range in this ICU than in the French ICU, which had a lower nurse–patient ratio and no specialised training of nurses (OR 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.50) for scores that were higher than target, and OR 0.14 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.28) for scores that were lower than target).
Conclusion Differences in sedation management between these ICUs are likely related to factors other than nurse–patient ratio or specialised training of ICU nurses.
- Intensive care
- organisation and administration
- patient safety
- clinical guidelines
- safety culture
- healthcare quality improvement
- continuous quality improvement
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Additional appendixes are published online only. To view these files please visit the journal online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000083).
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and Ethics Committee at Hôpital St. Eloi.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.