Background Nurses are fundamental to the implementation of sedation protocols for patients receiving mechanical ventilation. A 2005 survey showed that nurses’ attitudes toward sedation affected their sedation practices. Since then, updated guidelines on managing pain, agitation, and delirium have been published. Objective To explore nurses’ self-reported attitudes and practices related to sedation and determine whether they have changed in the past decade. Methods Members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses were invited to complete the Nurse Sedation Practices Scale, which measures nurses’ self-reported sedation practices and factors that affect them. Item and subscale responses were analyzed, and differences in item responses by respondent characteristics were determined. Results Respondents (N = 177) were mostly staff nurses (68%) with a bachelor’s degree in nursing (63%). Nurses’ attitudes toward the effectiveness of sedation in relieving patients’ distress during mechanical ventilation correlated positively with their intention to administer sedatives ( r s = 0.65). Sixty-six percent of nurses agreed that sedation was necessary for patients’ comfort, and 34% agreed that limiting patients’ recall was a desired outcome of sedation. Respondents with more experience or CCRN certification had a less positive evaluation of the effectiveness of sedation in minimizing distress. Conclusions Nurses’ attitudes toward sedating patients receiving mechanical ventilation have shifted in the past decade, with fewer nurses now believing that all patients should be sedated. However, more than half of nurses still agree that sedation is needed for patients’ comfort, highlighting the need to consider nurses’ attitudes when seeking to optimize sedation practices during mechanical ventilation.

Background Weaning from mechanical ventilation requires increased respiratory effort, which can heighten anxiety and later prolong the need for mechanical ventilation. Objectives To examine the predictive associations of music intervention, anxiety, sedative exposure, and patients’ characteristics on time to initiation and duration of weaning trials of patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods A descriptive, correlational design was used for a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial. Music listening was defined as self-initiated, patient-directed music via headphones. Anxiety was measured daily with a visual analog scale. Sedative exposure was operationalized as a daily sedation intensity score and a sedative dose frequency. Analyses consisted of descriptive statistics, graphing, survival analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression, and linear regression. Results Of 307 patients, 52% were women and 86% were white. Mean age was 59.3 (SD, 14.4) years, mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score was 62.9 (SD, 21.6), mean duration of ventilatory support was 8 (range, 1–52) days, and mean stay in the intensive care unit was 18 (range, 2–71) days. Music listening, anxiety levels, and sedative exposure did not influence time to initial weaning trial or duration of trials. Clinical factors of illness severity, days of weaning trials, and tracheostomy placement influenced weaning patterns in this sample. Conclusions Prospective studies of music intervention and other psychophysiological factors during weaning from mechanical ventilation are needed to better understand factors that promote successful weaning.

Although enrolling a sufficient number of participants is a challenge for any multisite clinical trial, recruiting patients who are critically ill and receiving mechanical ventilatory support presents additional challenges because of the severity of the patients’ illness and the impediments to their communication. Recruitment challenges related to the research sites, nursing staff, and research participants faced in the first 2 years of a 4-year multisite clinical trial of a patient-directed music intervention for managing anxiety in the intensive care unit were determined. Strategies to overcome these challenges, and thereby increase enrollment, were devised. Individual strategies, such as timing of screening on a unit, were tailored to each participating site to enhance recruitment for this trial. Other strategies, such as obtaining a waiver for a participant’s signature, were instituted across all participating sites. Through implementation of these various strategies, the mean monthly enrollment of participants increased by 50%. Investigators are advised to plan well in advance of starting recruitment for a clinical trial based in an intensive care unit, anticipate peaks and valleys in recruitment, and be proactive in addressing issues creatively as the issues arise.