IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i3-4p434-444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding nurses' decision‐making when managing weaning from mechanical ventilation: a study of novice and experienced critical care nurses in Scotland and Greece

Author

Listed:
  • Kalliopi Kydonaki
  • Guro Huby
  • Jennifer Tocher
  • Leanne M Aitken

Abstract

Aim and objectives To examine how nurses collect and use cues from respiratory assessment to inform their decisions as they wean patients from ventilatory support. Background Prompt and accurate identification of the patient's ability to sustain reduction of ventilatory support has the potential to increase the likelihood of successful weaning. Nurses' information processing during the weaning from mechanical ventilation has not been well‐described. Design A descriptive ethnographic study exploring critical care nurses' decision‐making processes when weaning mechanically ventilated patients from ventilatory support in the real setting. Methods Novice and expert Scottish and Greek nurses from two tertiary intensive care units were observed in real practice of weaning mechanical ventilation and were invited to participate in reflective interviews near the end of their shift. Data were analysed thematically using concept maps based on information processing theory. Ethics approval and informed consent were obtained. Results Scottish and Greek critical care nurses acquired patient‐centred objective physiological and subjective information from respiratory assessment and previous knowledge of the patient, which they clustered around seven concepts descriptive of the patient's ability to wean. Less experienced nurses required more encounters of cues to attain the concepts with certainty. Subjective criteria were intuitively derived from previous knowledge of patients' responses to changes of ventilatory support. All nurses used focusing decision‐making strategies to select and group cues in order to categorise information with certainty and reduce the mental strain of the decision task. Conclusions Nurses used patient‐centred information to make a judgment about the patients' ability to wean. Decision‐making strategies that involve categorisation of patient‐centred information can be taught in bespoke educational programmes for mechanical ventilation and weaning. Relevance to clinical practice Advanced clinical reasoning skills and accurate detection of cues in respiratory assessment by critical care nurses will ensure optimum patient management in weaning mechanical ventilation.

Suggested Citation

  • Kalliopi Kydonaki & Guro Huby & Jennifer Tocher & Leanne M Aitken, 2016. "Understanding nurses' decision‐making when managing weaning from mechanical ventilation: a study of novice and experienced critical care nurses in Scotland and Greece," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3-4), pages 434-444, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:3-4:p:434-444
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13070
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13070?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nina Andersson & Birgitta Klang & Gunilla Petersson, 2012. "Differences in clinical reasoning among nurses working in highly specialised paediatric care," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5‐6), pages 870-879, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deborah Jane Sims & Cathrine Fowler, 2018. "Postnatal psychosocial assessment and clinical decision‐making, a descriptive study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(19-20), pages 3739-3749, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:3-4:p:434-444. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.