Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, H.-
dc.contributor.otherHewson-Conroy, K.-
dc.contributor.otherBurrell, A.-
dc.contributor.otherElliott, D.-
dc.contributor.otherWebb, S.-
dc.contributor.otherSeppelt, I.-
dc.contributor.otherTaylor, C.-
dc.contributor.otherGlass, P.-
dc.identifier.citationAnaesthesia and Intensive Care. 2011 Sep;39(5):926-35.en_US
dc.descriptionContribution to data for study from H. Wong @ Epworth Easternen_US
dc.description.abstractThere are indications that compliance with routine clinical practices in intensive care units (ICU) varies widely internationally, but it is currently unknown whether this is the case throughout Australia and New Zealand. A one-day point prevalence study measured the prevalence of routine care processes being delivered in Australian and New Zealand ICUs including the assessment and/or management of: nutrition, pain, sedation, weaning from mechanical ventilation, head of bed elevation, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, stress ulcer prophylaxis, blood glucose, pressure areas and bowel action. Using a sample of 50 adult ICUs, prevalence data were collected for 662 patients with a median age of 65 years and a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18. Wide variations in compliance were evident in several care components including: assessment of nutritional goals (74%, interquartile range [IQR] 51 to 89%), pain score (35%, IQR 17 to 62%), sedation score (89%, IQR 50 to 100%); care of ventilated patients e.g. head of bed elevation > 30 degrees (33%, IQR 7 to 62%) and setting weaning plans (50%, IQR 28 to 78%); pressure area risk assessment (78%, IQR 18 to 100%) and constipation management plan (43%, IQR 6 to 87%). Care components that were delivered more consistently included nutrition delivery (100%, IQR 100 to 100%), deep venous thrombosis (96%, IQR 89 to 100%) and stress ulcer (90%, IQR 78 to 100%) prophylaxis, and checking blood sugar levels (93%, IQR 88 to 100%). This point prevalence study demonstrated variability in the delivery of 'routine' cares in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. This may be driven in part by lack of consensus on what is best practice in intensive care units, prompting the need for further research in this area.en_US
dc.subjectEpworth Eastern, Arnold Street, Box Hill, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.subjectIntensive Care Unitsen_US
dc.subjectPatient Care Managementen_US
dc.subjectAcute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluationen_US
dc.subjectNursing Care Managementen_US
dc.subjectStandards of Careen_US
dc.subjectProcess Assessment (Health Care)en_US
dc.subjectAssessment, Processen_US
dc.subjectBest Practicesen_US
dc.subjectCritical Careen_US
dc.subjectQuality Indicators, Health Careen_US
dc.subjectDelivery of Health Careen_US
dc.subjectHealthcare Deliveryen_US
dc.titleCompliance with processes of care in intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand - a point prevalence study.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleAnaesthesia and Intensive Careen_US
dc.description.affiliatesNew South Wales Intensive Care Coordination and Monitoring Unit, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia.en_US
dc.type.studyortrialComparative Studyen_US
Appears in Collections:Critical Care
Health Administration

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.