4.4 Article

Critical care nurses' knowledge of, adherence to and barriers towards evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia - A survey study

Journal

INTENSIVE AND CRITICAL CARE NURSING
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 216-227

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2013.02.006

Keywords

Ventilator-associated pneumonia; Evidence-based guidelines; Knowledge; Adherence; Barriers

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To explore critical care nurses' knowledge of, adherence to and barriers towards evidence-based guidelines for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Design: A quantitative cross-sectional survey. Methods: Two multiple-choice questionnaires were distributed to critical care nurses (n=101) in a single academic centre in Finland in the autumn of 2010. An independent-samples t-test was used to compare critical care nurses' knowledge and adherence within different groups. The principles of inductive content analysis were used to analyse the barriers towards evidence-based guidelines for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Results: The mean score in the knowledge test was 59.9%. More experienced nurses performed significantly better than their less-experienced colleagues (p=0.029). The overall, self-reported adherence was 84.0%. The main self-reported barriers towards evidence-based guidelines were inadequate resources and disagreement with the results as well as lack of time, skills, knowledge and guidance. Conclusion: There is an ongoing need for improvements in education and effective implementation strategies. Clinical implications: The results could be used to inform local practice and stimulate debate on measures to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Education, guidelines as well as ventilator bundles and instruments should be developed and updated to improve infection control. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available