Abstract
Importance The ABCDEF bundle is a guideline-recommended framework for implementing evidence-based practices in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), but it is underutilized across the world.
Objective Describe the physical environment factors (i.e., availability, accessibility) of bundle-enhancing items in units implementing the bundle and the influence of physical environment on bundle adherence.
Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter, exploratory, cross-sectional study used data from two ICU-based randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (NCT01211522 and NCT01739933) that measured daily bundle adherence. The study included 10 medical and surgical ICUs in 6 academic medical centers in the continental United States. Adults with qualifying respiratory failure and/or septic shock (e.g., mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use) were included in the RCTs. Unit- and patient-level data collection occurred between 2011 and 2016. We conducted hierarchical logistic regression models using Frequentist and Bayesian frameworks.
Exposure The ABCDE bundle (Awakening and Breathing trial Coordination, Delirium assessment/management, Early mobility) was recommended standard of care for RCT patients and adherence tracked daily.
Measure(s) The primary outcome was adherence to the full bundle and the early mobility bundle component as identified from daily adherence documentation (n=751 patient observations). Unit-level measures included minimum and maximum distances to 25 bundle-enhancing items and the relationship to bundle adherence.
Results In all cases, mechanical ventilation was associated with decreased bundle adherence. Some of the models suggested the following variables were also influential: age (older associated with decreased adherence), unit size (larger associated with decreased adherence), and a standard walker (presence associated with increased adherence).
Conclusions and Relevance Both unit- and patient-level barriers influenced full bundle and early mobility implementation. There is potential benefit of physical proximity to essential items for ABCDEF bundle and early mobility adherence. Future studies with larger sample sizes should explore how equipment location and availability influences practice.
Question Does the physical environment, specifically the availability and accessibility of ABCDEF bundle-enhancing items, influence bundle adherence?
Findings In this cross-sectional study in 10 units evaluating ABCDEF bundle adherence across 751 patient observations, units with access to a standard walker were significantly more likely to provide bundled care. Across all models, patients who were on the ventilator or older were significantly less likely to received bundled care.
Meaning Both unit- and patient-level factors influence ABCDEF bundle implementation and amenable targets for implementation strategy development.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project was funded by an American Association of Critical-Care Nurses-Sigma Theta Tau International Critical Care Grant (#20170) and the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (UL1 TR000445 from National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences/National Institutes of Health). Dr. Boehm is currently receiving grant funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (#K12HL137943-01). Dr. Jeffery received support for this work from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) under award number K12 HS026395. Dr. Werthman and Dr. Jeffery received support from the resources and use of facilities at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of AHRQ, PCORI, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States Government.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This secondary, retrospective analysis had no specific institutional review board (IRB) oversight, as all data were already in aggregate form. For the primary data collection in the original studies, ethical approval was obtained from the IRB at each of the participating centers. The parent IRB approvals are held at Vanderbilt University under IRB# 040542 (MIND Study, NCT00096863) and IRB# 121380 (MENDS2 Study, NCT01739933). The following sub-sites also provided local IRB approval: University of California, San Francisco; Baton Rouge General Medical Center and Our Lady of The Lakes Regional Medical Center; Tufts Medical Center; Baystate Medical Center; Mission Hospital (Asheville, NC); Texas Health Harris Fort Worth; Baylor College of Medicine; Houston Methodist Hospital; University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; University of Wisconsin; University of Iowa; University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill; Moses Cone (Greensboro, NC); & Saint Thomas Hospital (Nashville, TN).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data can be provided to interested readers upon request.
