TY  - BOOK
AU  - Kriner, Eric
TI  - Impact of a Mechanical Ventilation Curriculum on Respiratory Therapist Recognition of Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony
SN  - 0020-1324
PY  - 2022///
KW  - *Respiration, Artificial
KW  - *Ventilators, Mechanical
KW  - Curriculum
KW  - Humans
KW  - MedStar Washington Hospital Center
KW  - Respiratory Therapy
KW  - Journal Article
N1  - Available online from MWHC library: 2003 - 2008, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2008
N2  - BACKGROUND: Respiratory therapists (RTs) play a crucial role in managing mechanically ventilated patients, such as addressing patient-ventilator asynchronies that may contribute to patient harm. Waveform analysis is integral to the evaluation of patient-ventilator asynchronies; despite this, no published studies have assessed the ability of practicing RTs to interpret ventilator waveform abnormalities; CONCLUSIONS: RTs may benefit from additional training in ventilator waveform interpretation, especially early in their clinical training. More work is needed to determine the optimal length and content of a mechanical ventilation curriculum for RTs. Copyright © 2022 by Daedalus Enterprises; METHODS: The study took place between June 2017-February 2019. Eighty-six RTs from 2 academic medical centers enrolled in a one-day mechanical ventilation course. The scores of 79 first-time attendees were included in the analysis. Prior to and following the course, RTs were asked to identify abnormalities on a 5-question, multiple-choice ventilator waveform exam. They were also asked to provide a self-assessment of their ventilator management skills on a 1 (complete novice) to 5 (expert) scale; RESULTS: Initial scores were low but improved after one day of ventilator instruction (19.4 +/- 17.1 vs 29.6 +/- 19.0, P < .001). No significant difference was noted in mean confidence levels between the pre- and post-course assessments (3.8 +/- 0.9 vs 3.8 +/- 1.0, P = .56). RTs with fewer years of clinical experience (0-10 y) had a statistically significant improvement in their post-course test scores relative to their pre-course scores (0-5 y: 12.5 +/- 10.1 to 46.0 +/- 10.8, P < .001; 6-10 y: 18.7 +/- 15.8 to 32.1 +/- 16.7, P = .02), whereas those with > 11 y of clinical experience did not (11-20 y: 22.4 +/- 15.5 to 27.4 +/- 19.0, P = .44; 21+ y: 19.6 +/- 22.1 to 15.3 +/- 13.8, P = .50)
UR  - https://dx.doi.org/10.4187/respcare.09903
ER  -