ABSTRACT
Introduction Hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF) affects nearly 15% of critically ill adults admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). An evidence based, stakeholder informed multidisciplinary care pathway (Venting Wisely) was created to standardize the diagnosis and management of patients with HRF and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Successful adherence to the pathway requires a coordinated team-based approach by the clinician team. The overall aim of this study is to describe the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway among critical care clinicians. Specifically, this will allow us to: 1) better understand the user’s experience with the intervention and 2) determine if the intervention was delivered as intended.
Methods and analysis This qualitative study will conduct focus groups with nurse practitioners, physicians, registered nurses, and registered respiratory therapists from 17 Alberta ICUs. We will use template analysis to describe the acceptability of a multi component care pathway according to seven constructs of acceptability: 1) Affective attitude; 2) Burden; 3) Ethicality; 4) Intervention coherence; 5) Opportunity costs; 6) Perceived effectiveness; and 7) Self-efficacy. This study will contribute to a better understanding of the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway. Identification of areas of poor acceptability will be used to refine the pathway and implementation strategies as ways to improve adherence to the pathway and promote its sustainability.
Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (CHREB). The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a scientific conference.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
This qualitative study will provide vital information about why the implementation of the Venting Wisely pathway may or may not have worked as anticipated.
Findings will identify opportunities to improve pathway adherence and provide insights on how to sustain the intervention and scale to other sites.
Acceptance and adherence of the Venting Wisely pathway has the potential to increase and standardize the use of evidence-informed, life-saving therapies for mechanically ventilated patients; this may improve outcomes and save costs to the healthcare system.
Focus groups will be conducted with a wide variety of clinicians (nurse practitioners, physicians, registered nurses, registered respiratory therapists), and within various intensive care units (general systems, cardiovascular surgery, and neurosciences), and hospitals (regional, community, and tertiary).
The study is being conducted in one province in Canada, which may limit generalizability.
INTRODUCTION
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure (HRF) is a common medical emergency affecting up to 15% of ICU admissions (1, 2). The most severe subtype of HRF is ARDS (3). ARDS is associated with significant mortality (over 30% in severe cases), functional disability, and increased health care resource utilization (4-10). Guideline-recommended approaches for the application of mechanical ventilation and adjunctive therapies for HRF and ARDS exist (11-15). Unfortunately, despite this, HRF and ARDS remain underdiagnosed and evidence-based interventions remain underutilised (10).
Effective clinical management of complex conditions such as HRF and ARDS requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach. The Institute of Medicine suggests using care pathways to coordinate and improve care of complex conditions (16). We developed a care pathway for HRF and ARDS called Venting Wisely that is evidence-informed, multidisciplinary and stakeholder derived (17). This pathway standardizes the diagnosis and management of HRF and ARDS. It includes 42 elements, however is focused on five key evidence-informed steps including measuring a patient’s height to estimate the size of their lungs, screening for hypoxemic respiratory failure daily, instituting lung protective ventilation consistently, and using neuromuscular blockade and prone positioning when indicated (17).
Acceptability of the intervention among clinicians is a crucial attribute for its’ success. Sekhon et al. define acceptability as a multi-faceted construct and propose the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) to evaluate the acceptability of healthcare interventions (18). The TFA consists of seven components: 1) affective attitude (how a clinician feels about the intervention), 2) burden (the clinician’s perception about the required amount of effort to participate in the intervention), 3) ethicality (the extent to which the intervention aligns with a clinician’s value system), 4) intervention coherence (the extent to which the clinician understands the intervention), 5) opportunity costs (benefits or costs to the clinician for using the pathway), 6) perceived effectiveness (the extent to which the clinician perceives the intervention as likely to achieve its purpose), and 7) self-efficacy (the clinician’s confidence that they can use the pathway).
Acceptability is recognized as an important implementation outcome that should be assessed in any complex intervention (19). Therefore, understanding the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway is important to understand the user’s experience of the intervention and whether the intervention is being provided as intended. Implementation of the Venting Wisely pathway is complex because it requires engagement of multidisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU) care team members, including nurse practitioners, physicians, registered nurses, or registered respiratory therapists. Our understanding of why the implementation of the Venting Wisely pathway does or does not work as anticipated will identify opportunities to improve pathway adherence and provide insights on how to sustain the intervention and scale to other sites (18). Strong acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway has the potential to increase and standardize the use of evidence-informed, life-saving therapies for HRF and ARDS, improve patient outcomes, and reduce costs within the healthcare system. Study findings may also provide insights into how other complex interventions should and should not be implemented and adopted by multidisciplinary teams. The Venting Wisely pathway is currently being implemented through a cluster randomized stepped wedge trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04744298) across 17 adult ICUs in Alberta, Canada as part of a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial (20, 21).
Objective
The overall objective of this study is to explore clinician perceptions of the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway among ICU clinicians in a diversity of ICUs. These data will inform iterative refinements of the pathway and the implementation strategy for this pathway and suggestions for facilitating pathway fidelity, sustainability, and scalability.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
Study design
The study will be reported according to the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (COREQ)(22). The study was designed with input from a patient partner. Following implementation of the Venting Wisely pathway, we will conduct focus groups with critical care clinicians (nurse practitioners, physicians, registered nurses, or registered respiratory therapists involved in using the pathway). The full study protocol has been posted publicly (20). This focus group protocol has been posted on a pre-print server (https://www.medrxiv.org/) prior to completion of recruitment. Focus groups were initiated in April 2022. The target for study completion is late 2023.
Participants and sampling frame
Participants will be eligible if they are a clinician (nurse practitioner, physician, registered nurse, or registered respiratory therapist) working in one of the 17 ICUs in Alberta, Canada that has experienced the implementation of the Venting Wisely pathway for at least two months. Inclusion criteria includes ICUs demonstrating adherence to key pathway elements (i.e., composite fidelity score of >70% or 10% gain above baseline) to ensure that focus group participants have adequate exposure to the pathway. Any ICU that does not meet these criteria will have their focus group conducted at the end of the study.
Eligible clinicians will be emailed a letter explaining the purpose of the study by the ICU manager or site pathway champions (online supplemental file 1). Interested clinicians will be invited to contact the research team. Participants will be emailed a $50 gift card after completion of the focus group in recognition of their time. Purposive sampling will be by discipline i.e., all participants in each focus group will be from the same discipline to ensure representation from clinicians across institutions and with diversity in level of experience and primary discipline. All participants will be emailed a consent form (online supplemental file 2) and be asked to provide informed consent before participating in the focus group (online supplemental file 3).
Data Collection
We developed a focus group guide (online supplemental file 4) based on the seven constructs included in the TFA (Table 1). We developed at least one question per domain, with prompts to probe domains for clarification or exploration. An ICU physician, registered nurses, registered respiratory therapists, and researchers reviewed the focus group guide for face validity. The focus group guide will be pilot tested with four groups of specialty-specific stakeholders (i.e., nurse practitioners, physicians, registered nurses, and registered respiratory therapists) from the Venting Wisely pilot implementation site (Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary AB) to refine wording and enhance clarity prior to conducting interviews.
Focus groups will be moderated by a researcher (KK) or knowledge translation expert/registered nurse (AI) with experience in qualitative methods. A researcher will observe the focus groups and take notes to record details of participants surroundings, important features of participant responses, and themes to consider in the formal data analysis. Focus groups will be conducted remotely using Zoom. Duration of focus groups will be scheduled for 1.5 hours. Demographic data will be collected via an online survey (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) prior to the start of the focus group, including age, gender identity, ethnic, racial, or cultural self-identification, years of ICU experience, professional designation, and primary hospital site (online supplemental file 5). All focus groups will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, verified, and deidentified. All focus group participants will be emailed a copy of the study report to review and comment upon as a form of member-checking.
Sample Size
There are no a priori sample size considerations. We plan to conduct up to 17 focus groups at least two months post-implementation of the Venting Wisely pathway (see above Participants and sampling frame). Each focus group will consist of representatives from four prespecified ICUs from a single discipline. We will limit focus groups to eight clinicians for a total of up to 100 participants. We will conduct additional focus groups if needed to achieve theoretical saturation of themes (i.e., point when new data do not generate any new insights).
Data analysis
De-identified transcripts will be imported into NVivo-12 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) for data management and analysis. Each participant group (i.e., nurse practitioner, physician, registered nurse, or registered respiratory therapist) will be analyzed independently to allow for the identification of discipline-specific themes. A coding template will be developed, with a priori themes based on the seven constructs of the TFA. Qualitative data will be collected and analyzed iteratively by two researchers (KK and AI). The researchers, working independently, will begin by reading the transcripts to gain familiarity with the content, followed by line-by-line inductive coding with constant comparison. The researchers will meet after reviewing every two to three transcripts to review emerging findings; differences will be resolved through discussion. The codes will then be mapped to the template of a priori themes, and additional themes emerging through the analysis will be added. Subthemes will be identified within and across themes. Once all transcripts are coded and mapped, the data will be organized to describe how participant experiences are aligned with and divergent from the TFA constructs (23-25). Quantitative demographic data will be summarized using descriptive statistics. The research team will meet regularly to review and discuss the findings. The multidisciplinary composition of the research team will ensure that the perspectives of all members of the ICU care team are reflected in the analysis and interpretation of data. Questions in the focus group guide may be adapted as focus groups are conducted and analyzed in order to further explore identified subthemes.
Duration, Challenges, and Mitigation
We anticipate focus group guide refinement, recruitment of participants, focus group meetings and analysis will take up to 24 months. The largest risk will be challenges in recruitment. Our team will leverage our multi-disciplinary network of investigators and leaders to recruit clinicians as in previous studies completed successfully (26, 27).
Knowledge Translation
We will use two types of knowledge translation throughout this study: integrated knowledge translation (iKT) and end of grant knowledge translation (28). Members of the ICU care team have been engaged throughout this study, from the development of the Venting Wisely pathway to development and refinement of the focus group guide. During data analysis, we will present our findings to Venting Wisely clinical advisors to evaluate and iteratively improve implementation of the Venting Wisely pathway at other ICUs and improve pathway adherence.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
Ethics
This study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (REB20-0646).
Dissemination
We will compile a record of perceptions of the Venting Wisely pathway and how clinician involvement can be optimized and sustained. These will be included in a published report and inform future phases of this research program, including an exploration of the sustainability and (inter)national scalability of the Venting Wisely pathway. Study results will be shared with the 17 ICUs who participated in this study, submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication, and presented at a scientific conference. The results of the study will be disseminated to patients and the public at the completion of the trial.
Conclusion
Exploring clinician experiences with the Venting Wisely pathway will contribute to a better understanding of the user’s experience of the Venting Wisely pathway. Study findings will be used to inform the refinement, implementation, and sustainment of the pathway to ensure its use is as intended, which in turn may improve outcomes of critically ill adults with HRF and ARDS. Study findings may also provide insights into how other complex interventions should and should not be implemented and adopted by multidisciplinary teams within an ICU setting.
Data Availability
This is a protocol so there is no data associated with this manuscript. We have ethics approval to conduct this study.
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare they have no competing interests.
FUNDING: We have received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Health Innovation Implementation and Spread (HIIS 2) grant from Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Co-Author Email Contacts and Roles Karla Krewulak kkrewula{at}ucalgary.ca Study conception/ protocol development/manuscript drafting
Gwen Knight gwen.knight{at}ucalgary.ca Study conception/ protocol development/manuscript drafting
Andrea Irwin Andrea.irwin{at}albertahealthservices.ca Protocol development/manuscript drafting
Jeanna Morrissey jeanna.morrissey{at}albertahealthservices.ca Protocol development/manuscript drafting
Henry T. Stelfox tstelfox{at}ucalgary.ca Study conception/ protocol development/manuscript revision
Sean Bagshaw bagshaw{at}ualberta.ca Study conception/ protocol development/manuscript revision
Danny Zuege dan.zuege{at}ahs.ca Study conception/ protocol development/manuscript revision
Amanda Roze des Ordons amanda.rozedesordons{at}ucalgary.ca Study conception/ protocol development/manuscript revision
Kirsten M. Fiest kmfiest{at}ucalgary.ca Study conception/ protocol development/manuscript revision