Mechanical Ventilation, Weaning Practices, and Decision Making in European PICUs*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This survey had three key objectives: 1) To describe responsibility for key ventilation and weaning decisions in European PICUs and explore variations across Europe; 2) To describe the use of protocols, spontaneous breathing trials, noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula use, and automated weaning systems; and 3) To describe nurse-to-patient staffing ratios and perceived nursing autonomy and influence over ventilation decision making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional electronic survey. SETTING: European PICUs. PARTICIPANTS: Senior ICU nurse and physician from participating PICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Response rate was 64% (65/102) representing 19 European countries. Determination of weaning failure was most commonly based on collaborative decision making (81% PICUs; 95% CI, 70-89%). Compared to this decision, selection of initial ventilator settings and weaning method was least likely to be collaborative (relative risk, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.47 and relative risk, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.32-0.45). Most PICUs (> 75%) enabled physicians in registrar (fellow) positions to have responsibility for key ventilation decisions. Availability of written guidelines/protocols for ventilation (31%), weaning (22%), and noninvasive ventilation (33%) was uncommon, whereas sedation protocols (66%) and sedation assessment tools (76%) were common. Availability of protocols was similar across European regions (all p > 0.05). High-flow nasal cannula (53%), noninvasive ventilation (52%) to avoid intubation, and spontaneous breathing trials (44%) were used in approximately half the PICUs greater than 50% of the time. A nurse-to-patient ratio of 1:2 was most frequent for invasively (50%) and noninvasively (70%) ventilated patients. Perceived nursing autonomy (median [interquartile range], 4 [2-6]) and influence (median [interquartile range], 7 [5-8]) for ventilation and weaning decisions varied across Europe (p = 0.007 and p = 0.01, respectively) and were highest in Northern European countries. CONCLUSIONS: We found variability across European PICUs in interprofessional team involvement for ventilation decision making, nurse staffing, and perceived nursing autonomy and influence over decisions. Patterns of adoption of tools/adjuncts for weaning and sedation were similar.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".