Prioritizing evidence-based practices for acute respiratory distress syndrome using digital data: an iterative multi-stakeholder process

Abstract

Abstract Background Evidence-based practices (EBPs) for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation vary in the quality of their underlying evidence and ease of implementation. Research question How do researchers and clinicians prioritize EBPs to help guide clinical decision-making and focus implementation efforts to improve patient care using existing, validated measures? Study design and methods We developed a 4-step rapid method using existing criteria to prioritize EBPs associated with lower mortality and/or shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation for patients suffering from acute respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Using different types of data including surveys, we (1) identified relevant EBPs, (2) rated EBPs using the Guideline Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) tool, (3) surveyed practicing ICU clinicians from different hospital systems using a subset of GLIA criteria, and (4) developed metrics to assess EBP performance. In this paper, we describe steps 2 and 3. Results In step 2, we prioritized 11 EBPs from an initial list of 30, using surveys and ratings among a small group of clinician researchers. In step 3, 42 clinicians from 8 different hospital systems provided assessments of these 11 EBPs which inform the final step of metric development. Interpretation Our prioritization process allowed us to identify 11 EBPs out of a larger group that clinicians perceive is most likely to help optimize invasive mechanical ventilation and improve the outcomes of this vulnerable patient population. While this method was developed in critical care related to adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, it is adaptable to other health contexts.

Keywords

• Implementation science
• Prioritization
• Evidence-based practices
• Clinical quality improvement
• Healthcare providers