Repository logo
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
Repository logo
  • Communities & Collections
  • Research Outputs
  • Statistics
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
  1. Home
  2. Faculty of Medicine
  3. School of Public Health
  4. School of Public Health
  5. Factors affecting the use of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in the adult critical care unit: a clinician survey
 
  • Details
Factors affecting the use of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in the adult critical care unit: a clinician survey
File(s)
2020 Hadfield et al BMJ Open.pdf (1.1 MB)
Published version
Author(s)
Hadfield, Daniel
Rose, Louise
Reid, Fiona
Cornelius, Victoria
Hart, Nicholas
more
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) involves an intricate interaction between patient, clinician and technology. To improve our understanding of this complex intervention and to inform future trials, this survey aimed to examine clinician attitudes, beliefs and barriers to NAVA use in critically ill adults within an institution with significant NAVA experience. METHODS: A survey of nurses, doctors and physiotherapists in four Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of one UK university-affiliated hospital (75 NAVA equipped beds). The survey consisted of 39 mixed open and structured questions. The hospital had 8 years of NAVA experience prior to the survey. RESULTS: Of 466 distributed questionnaires, 301 (64.6%) were returned from 236 nurses (78.4%), 53 doctors (17.6%) and 12 physiotherapists (4.0%). Overall, 207/294 (70.4%) reported clinical experience. Most agreed that NAVA was safe (136/177, 76.8%) and clinically effective (99/176, 56.3%) and most perceived 'improved synchrony', 'improved comfort' and 'monitoring the diaphragm' to be key advantages of NAVA. 'Technical issues' (129/189, 68.3%) and 'NAVA signal problems' (94/180, 52.2%) were the most cited clinical disadvantage and cause of mode cross-over to Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV), respectively. Most perceived NAVA to be more difficult to use than PSV (105/174, 60.3%), although results were mixed when compared across different tasks. More participants preferred PSV to NAVA for initiating ventilator weaning (93/171 (54.4%) vs 29/171 (17.0%)). A key barrier to use and a consistent theme throughout was 'low confidence' in relation to NAVA use. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to broad clinician support for NAVA, this survey describes technical concerns, low confidence and a perception of difficulty above that associated with PSV. In this context, high-quality training and usage algorithms are critically important to the design and of future trials, to clinician acceptance and to the clinical implementation and future success of NAVA.
Date Issued
2020-12
Date Acceptance
2020-11-12
Citation
BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 2020, 7 (1)
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/84983
DOI
https://www.dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000783
ISSN
2052-4439
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
Journal / Book Title
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
Volume
7
Issue
1
Copyright Statement
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
License URL
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Identifier
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33293357
PII: 7/1/e000783
Subjects
assisted ventilation
Publication Status
Published
Coverage Spatial
England
Article Number
e000783
Date Publish Online
2020-12-08
About
Spiral Depositing with Spiral Publishing with Spiral Symplectic
Contact us
Open access team Report an issue
Other Services
Scholarly Communications Library Services
logo

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus

London SW7 2AZ, UK

tel: +44 (0)20 7589 5111

Accessibility Modern slavery statement Cookie Policy

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback