Background Sedation and analgesia have an important impact on the outcome of patients treated with mechanical ventilation. International guidelines recommend use of sedation protocols to ensure best patient care. Objective To determine the sedation practice of intensive care nurses weaning adults from mechanical ventilation. Methods A cross-sectional survey with a self-administered questionnaire was used to determine sedation practices of Flemish critical care nurses during weaning. Consensus on content validity was achieved through a Delphi procedure among experts. Data were collected during the 32nd Annual Congress of the Flemish Society of Critical Care Nurses in Ghent, Belgium, December 2014. Results A total of 342 nurses were included in the study. Of these, 43.7% had a sedation protocol in their unit that was used by 61.8% of the respondents. Sedation protocols were more often available ( P < .001) in academic hospitals (72%) than in general hospitals (41.5%). Sedatives were administered via continuous infusion with bolus doses if needed (81%). Level of sedation was assessed every 2 hours (56%), mostly via the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (59.1%). Daily interruption of sedation was used by 16.5% of respondents. The biggest barriers to daily interruption were patient comfort (49.4%) and fear of respiratory worsening (46.6%). Conclusions A considerable discrepancy exists between international recommendations and actual sedation practices. Standardization of sedation practices across different institutions on a regional and national level may improve the quality of care.

The intensive care unit is a work environment where superior dedication is crucial for optimizing patients’ outcomes. As this demanding commitment is multidisciplinary in nature, it requires special qualities of health care workers and organizations. Thus research in the field covers a broad spectrum of activities necessary to deliver cutting-edge care. However, given the numerous research articles and education activities available, it is difficult for modern critical care clinicians to keep up with the latest progress and innovation in the field. This article broadly summarizes new developments in multidisciplinary intensive care. It provides elementary information about advanced insights in the field via brief descriptions of selected articles grouped by specific topics. Issues considered include care for heart patients, mechanical ventilation, delirium, nutrition, pressure ulcers, early mobility, infection prevention, transplantation and organ donation, care for caregivers, and family matters.

The intensive care unit is a work environment where superior dedication is pivotal to optimize patients’ outcomes. As this demanding commitment is multidisciplinary in nature, it requires special qualities of health care workers and organizations. Thus research in the field covers a broad spectrum of activities necessary to deliver cutting-edge care. However, given the abundance of research articles and education activities available, it is difficult for modern critical care clinicians to keep up with the latest progress and innovations in the field. This article broadly summarizes new developments in multidisciplinary intensive care, providing elementary information about advanced insights in the field by briefly describing selected articles bundled in specific topics. Issues considered include cardiovascular care, monitoring, mechanical ventilation, infection and sepsis, nutrition, education, patient safety, pain assessment and control, delirium, mental health, ethics, and outcomes research.

Background In order to avoid microaspiration and tracheal injury, the target for endotracheal tube cuff pressure is 20 to 30 cm H 2 O. Objective To assess the effect of changes in body position on cuff pressure in adult patients. Methods Twelve orally intubated and sedated patients received neuromuscular blockers and were positioned in a neutral starting position (backrest, head-of-bed elevation 30º, head in neutral position) with cuff pressure at 25 cm H 2 O. Then, 16 changes in position were performed: anteflexion head, hyperextension head, left and right lateral flexion of head, left and right rotation of the head, semirecumbent position (head-of-bed elevation 45°), recumbent position (head-of-bed elevation 10°), horizontal backrest, Trendelenburg position (10°), and left and right lateral positioning over 30°, 45°, and 90°. Once a patient was correctly positioned, cuff pressure was recorded during an end-expiratory ventilatory hold. The pressure observed was compared with the cuff pressure at the starting position. Values outside the target range (20–30 cm H 2 O) were considered clinically relevant. Results A total of 192 measurements were performed (12 subjects × 16 positions). A significant deviation in cuff pressure occurred with all 16 changes ( P < .05). No pressures were less than the lower limit (20 cm H 2 O). Pressures were greater than the upper limit (30 cm H 2 O) in 40.6% of the measurements. In each position, the upper target limit was exceeded at least once. Within-patient variability was substantial ( P = .02). Conclusion Simple changes in patients’ positioning can result in potentially harmful cuff pressures.

Background Although hand hygiene is the most effective measure for preventing cross-infection, overall compliance is poor among health care workers. Objectives To identify and describe predictors and determinants of noncompliance with hand hygiene prescriptions in intensive care unit nurses by means of a questionnaire. Methods A questionnaire based on a behavioral theory model was filled out by 148 nurses working on a 40-bed intensive care unit in a university hospital. Subjects were asked to fill out the 56-item questionnaire twice within a 2- to 6-week period. During this period, no interventions to enforce hand hygiene occurred on the unit. Results Response rate for the test was 73% (108/148); response rate for the retest was 53% (57/108). The mean self-reported compliance rate was 84%. Factor analysis revealed 8 elementary factors potentially associated with compliance. Internal consistency of the scales was acceptable. Intraclass correlation was low (<0.60) for 2 subscales but acceptable (>0.60) for 6 subscales. A low self-efficacy was independently associated with noncompliance (β = .379; P = .001). After exclusion of this variable, a negative attitude toward time-related barriers was associated with noncompliance (β = −.147; P < .001). Conclusions Neither having good theoretical knowledge of hand hygiene guidelines nor social influence or moral perceptions had any predictive value relative to hand hygiene practice. A valid questionnaire to identify predictors and determinants of noncompliance with hand hygiene has been designed. Nurses reporting a poor self-efficacy or a poor attitude toward time-related barriers appear to be less compliant.