Introduction
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a frequent and severe health-care associated infection. In Europe, pneumonia occur in 7.0% of patients staying at least 2 days in intensive care units (ICUs); 91% of these pneumonia are VAP [
1]. The proportion of VAP which is preventable is debated [
2] but there is no doubt that a serious potential for harm reduction does exist [
3,
4] and VAP prevention is becoming a major patient safety issue. In the US for instance, VAP prevention has been proposed as a national safety goal [
2].
VAP prevention requires clinical interventions (best practice guidelines) combined with non clinical interventions to ensure implementation and compliance with these guidelines.
Clinical interventions for VAP prevention fall in three categories [
5]. The first, obvious one, is to limit exposure to mechanical ventilation by preferring non-mechanical ventilation when possible and limiting its duration when alternative options are not possible. Other prevention practices aim at reducing airways colonization (such as oral care decontamination using chlorhexidine [
6]), or preventing aspiration [
5] (e.g. by nursing in the semi-recumbent position, or maintaining a sufficient cuff pressure). Clinical interventions should be combined, in what is often called a “care bundle”. The precise content of VAP care bundle varies between guidelines [
7,
8] because the number of items in a “bundle” should be limited, some prevention practices are controversial (e.g. selective digestive decontamination), [
9] and recommending best practice regarding such measures requires compromise and pragmatism [
8]. There is no universally accepted “VAP care bundle”. A study aiming at defining a “European care bundle” ranked VAP prevention measures by combining criteria such as the strength of the supporting evidence, ease of implementation, and expected impact [
10]. The top 5 clinical interventions (we did not consider “trained staff” as a clinical intervention) were: 1) no ventilatory circuit change unless specifically indicated; 2) strict hand hygiene with alcohol especially before managing the airways; 3) daily sedation vacation and weaning protocol; 4) oral care with chlorhexidine; and 5) cuff pressure control at least every 24 hrs. It was beyond the scope of our study to assess the evidence behind each of these interventions, but none appears to be controversial.
Ensuring compliance with guidelines is a vast and complex field of research [
11‐
13]. Common to any improvement strategy is the need for measurement; this serves evaluation purposes, measurement can also be the intervention, or a major component of it [
14‐
16]. In a survey on infection control practices in the US, ICUs were only able to reduce heathcare-associated infection rates (including VAP), when they had a written policy, monitored compliance, and achieved a ≥95% compliance to all elements included in the local care bundle [
11,
17]. Under the unchallenged assumption “if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it” (Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907), we considered here that monitoring process (compliance to guidelines) and outcomes is a necessary, if not sufficient, component of any intervention aiming at decreasing VAP.
Accurate diagnosis of VAP is a challenge, because many conditions commonly encountered in critically ill patients – such as pulmonary oedema, pulmonary hemorrhage and acute respiratory distress syndrome, can mimic the signs and symptoms of pneumonia [
5]. Clinical diagnosis leads to treatment decisions, its primary aim is to be accurate, and it cannot be entirely standardized. By contrast measurement need primarily to be reproducible to ensure comparability of data overtime and allow evaluation of trends. Standardization is essential. Criteria for diagnosis and criteria for recording, therefore do not necessarily overlap entirely. Guidelines and definitions of VAP for recording and reporting exist in Europe [
18] and in the United States [
19]. Despite some changes in the US, current case-definitions are still considered useful for internal quality improvement purposes [
20].
Our objectives were to document, using a web-based survey (1) reported VAP prevention practices in ICUs (clinical practices, and measurement) and (2) attitudes towards the implementation of a measurement system. Our primary interest laid in providing estimates at European level, but we did not define exclusion criteria based on geographical location; on the other hand country-specific results can be used to steer prevention initiatives at country level.
Results
A total of 1730 completed replies from 77 different countries were submitted (Table
1). Characteristics of the respondents, and their setting, are presented in Table
2.
Table 1
Number of replies to the survey, by country
European countries
| | |
Spain | 293 | 17% |
France | 251 | 15% |
Italy | 187 | 11% |
Austria | 130 | 8% |
United Kingdom | 115 | 7% |
Germany | 67 | 4% |
Portugal | 50 | 3% |
Belgium | 33 | 2% |
Netherlands | 31 | 2% |
Switzerland | 29 | 2% |
Greece | 23 | 1% |
Romania | 20 | 1% |
Denmark | 15 | 1% |
Sweden | 14 | 1% |
Ireland | 13 | 1% |
Hungary | 10 | 1% |
Total European countries with at least 10 replies*
|
1281
|
74%
|
Other (18 different countries) | 55 | 3% |
Non European countries
| | |
India | 63 | 4% |
Argentina | 40 | 2% |
Colombia | 31 | 2% |
Mexico | 31 | 2% |
Australia | 23 | 1% |
Peru | 23 | 1% |
Brazil | 21 | 1% |
Ecuador | 13 | 1% |
Chile | 12 | 1% |
Turkey** | 12 | 1% |
United States | 12 | 1% |
Saudi Arabia | 11 | 1% |
United Arab Emirates | 11 | 1% |
Venezuela | 11 | 1% |
Other (29 different countries) | 80 | 5% |
Survey - total
| 1730 | 100% |
Table 2
Characteristics of the respondents, and of their setting
Years working in ICU (mean) | 12.8 | 12.2 | 13.3 | 12.9 | 12.1 | 13.6 |
Admissions per year in their ICU (mean) | 1006 | 914 | 1098 | 900 | 787 | 1013 |
N beds in ICU (mean) | 16 | 15 | 17 | 16 | 15.4 | 17.3 |
|
%*
| | |
N
|
%
| | |
Gender (females) | 28 | 25 | 31 | 82 | 18 | 15 | 22 |
Working in hospital with > 1000 beds | 17 | 14 | 20 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 6 |
Working in hospital with 300–1000 beds | 55 | 52 | 56 | 145 | 33 | 28 | 37 |
Working in hospital <300 beds | 28 | 26 | 31 | 282 | 63 | 58 | 67 |
Weighted European estimates are based on 1281 respondents from the 16 countries from which at least 10 completed replies were available.
VAP prevention practices are presented in Table
3 (clinical practices) and Table
4 (measurements).
Table 3
VAP prevention: clinical practices, as reported by ICU doctors
In my ICU, hand hygiene is done with alcohol hand rub, always, or most of the time
| 95 | 94 | 97 | 395 | 88 | 85 | 91 |
In my ICU, there are written guidelines for VAP prevention
| 65 | 62 | 69 | 282 | 63 | 58 | 67 |
Guidelines developed locally | 33 | 30 | 36 | 162 | 36 | 32 | 41 |
Guidelines developed nationally | 31 | 28 | 34 | 117 | 26 | 22 | 30 |
In my ICU, care for intubated patients includes…
| | | | | | | |
No ventilatory circuit changes unless specifically indicated | 69 | 66 | 72 | 371 | 83 | 79 | 86 |
Strict hand hygiene using alcohol, especially before managing the airways | 83 | 80 | 86 | 364 | 81 | 77 | 85 |
Systematic daily interruption of sedation and weaning protocol | 49 | 46 | 53 | 285 | 63 | 59 | 68 |
Oral care with chlorhexidine | 70 | 67 | 73 | 302 | 67 | 63 | 72 |
Cuff pressure control at least every 24 hours | 83 | 81 | 85 | 347 | 77 | 73 | 81 |
Head of bed elevation | 96 | 94 | 97 | 442 | 98 | 97 | 100 |
Table 4
VAP prevention: measurements, as reported by ICU doctors
Measurement of compliance at least once a year
| | | | | | | |
Hand hygiene recommendations | 57 | 54 | 60 | 265 | 60 | 54 | 64 |
Systematic daily interruption of sedation and weaning protocol | 28 | 24 | 33 | 102 | 23 | 19 | 27 |
Oral care with chlorhexidine | 27 | 23 | 30 | 126 | 28 | 24 | 32 |
“In my ICU, there is a written definition of VAP for data collection”
| 50 | 47 | 54 | 286 | 64 | 59 | 68 |
YES- European guidelines | 26 | 23 | 29 | 37 | 8 | 6 | 11 |
YES- CDC guidelines | 12 | 10 | 15 | 206 | 46 | 41 | 51 |
“In my ICU, we count and record, routinely…” (% saying “yes”)
| | | | | | | |
VAP | 55 | 51 | 58 | 287 | 64 | 59 | 68 |
Intubation-days | 81 | 78 | 84 | 364 | 81 | 74 | 85 |
Intubated patients | 90 | 88 | 92 | 367 | 82 | 78 | 85 |
Please provide, if possible, the following data for your ICU - for part or all 2011 (% providing data)
| | | | | | | |
VAP/ 1000 ventilation-days | 20 | 17 | 22 | 113 | 25 | 21 | 29 |
Mean duration of intubation for intubated patients (days) | 27 | 25 | 30 | 148 | 33 | 29 | 37 |
Proportion of intubated patients | 38 | 35 | 41 | 178 | 40 | 35 | 44 |
“Clinical staff in my ICU is aware of VAP-related measures, and their trends” (% agree strongly / agree)
| 53 | 50 | 56 | 298 | 66 | 62 | 71 |
Attitudes towards the implementation of a VAP measurement system are presented in Table
5.
Table 5
Attitudes towards the implementation of a measurement system of infections in ICUs
To what extent do you agree with the following comments
|
If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it | 83 | 80 | 85 | 11 | 9 | 13 | 84 | 80 | 87 | 11 | 8 | 14 |
Monitoring of VAP related measures stimulates quality improvement | 93 | 91 | 94 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 97 | 94 | 98 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
VAP-related measures in my ICU (if any) are reliable | 54 | 51 | 58 | 12 | 10 | 15 | 66 | 61 | 70 | 8 | 6 | 11 |
I am willing to implement, or support, a VAP data collection system | 84 | 81 | 86 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 92 | 89 | 94 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
Clinical diagnosis of VAP is difficult: this makes measurement systems unreliable | 46 | 43 | 50 | 32 | 29 | 36 | 43 | 38 | 47 | 36 | 32 | 41 |
There is a difference between a definition of VAP for reporting, and a diagnosis of VAP for treatment | 45 | 42 | 49 | 32 | 28 | 35 | 46 | 41 | 50 | 30 | 26 | 35 |
Please indicate what actions would facilitate the implementation of a measurement system of infections in ICUs
|
Timely feed-back of data at ICU level | 92 | 90 | 94 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 96 | 93 | 97 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Administrative support | 88 | 86 | 90 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 95 | 92 | 97 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Dedicated software / IT resources | 91 | 89 | 93 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 92 | 89 | 94 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Reliable data | 95 | 93 | 96 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 96 | 94 | 98 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Discussion
Key results
This is, to our knowledge, the first international survey assessing VAP prevention practices – (clinical, and measurement) – among ICUs doctors. Participation was large, and almost two thirds of respondents reported the existence of written VAP prevention guidelines in their ICU - pointing out the interest in, and awareness of the problem. If we combine the good clinical practice, AND measuring compliance to this practice at least once a year (a very pragmatic objective), this was reported by 57% (hand hygiene), 29% (daily interruption of sedation) and 26% (oral care with chlorhexidine) of the participants to this survey (European estimates). Interestingly, “head of bed elevation” - a practice ranked very low in the “European care bundle” because it was perceived as difficult to implement - was mentioned by 96% of the respondents; this clinical practice was known by 85% of European nurses participating in a knowledge test about VAP prevention practices [
25].
As regards measurement of outcomes, European estimates show that only 54% count and record the number of VAP on a routine basis; and only 20% were able to provide data for their ICU on the main indicator used to monitor VAP - (VAP/1000 intubation-days). In contrast with these low proportions 93% agreed that “monitoring of VAP-related measures stimulates quality improvement” and 84% said they were willing to implement, or support, a VAP data collection system. They expressed some distrust as regards the data (46% agreed with the statement “clinical diagnosis of VAP is difficult; this makes measurement unreliable”), on the other hand, only 50% were aware of a standardized case definition for VAP recording in their ICU; and only 45% understood the difference between a definition of VAP for recording, and a diagnosis of VAP. Overall, 95% of respondents agreed that reliable data would facilitate the implementation of a measurement system.
These European estimates mask large difference between countries. For example oral care with chlorhexidine was reported by 55% (139/251) of the respondents in France, and by 94% (276/293) in Spain. Respondents saying yes to the question “in my ICU, we count and record VAP on a routine basis” were 50% (57/115) in the UK, and 74% (218/293) in Spain. Daily sedation vacation and weaning protocol were reported by 81% (93/115) in the UK, and by 35% (66/187) in Italy (see country-specific data, as Additional file
1).
Results from the 449 respondents not included in the European estimates are surprisingly similar to those of the European estimates.
Strengths and Limitations
This survey has several limitations. First, we cannot claim that participants represent a random sample of ICU clinicians in Europe nor in their own country. Some categories of ICU doctors are likely to be overrepresented, such as members of ICU national, or international societies. These might be better informed, and apply VAP prevention guidelines more than the average clinician. The list of VAP prevention measures we used as a reference for good practices guidelines [
10] could be criticized on several grounds, e.g. it does not include subglottic secretions drainage [
26]. Our dissemination strategy obviously worked better in some countries than others. Another limitation is that some questions in the questionnaire apply to the individual physician and others to the ICU (“in my ICU, care for intubated patients includes…) but the online questionnaire did not include questions allowing for the identification of the ICU, in order to preserve the anonymity of the respondents.
Respondents not included in the European estimates represent a very heterogeneous population with no clear geographical basis. We nevertheless considered it worthwhile to pool these results, because together these doctors are responsible for a large number of patients, and these data have identified weaknesses broadly similar to those observed in the European estimates.
Clearly, it cannot be concluded from a doctor’s reporting of a clinical practice in her/his setting, that this practice is used all the time for every patient who needs it: self-reports mainly provide information regarding clinicians’ knowledge of guideline recommendations, but they are subject to bias – overestimation – and should not be used as the sole measure of guideline adherence [
27]. Measuring compliance to guidelines at local level once a year appears as an absolute minimum. We did not ask details on the methods used to measure compliance. This is not necessarily easy, for instance detailed guidelines exist for measuring compliance to hand hygiene recommendations; [
28] and oral care in ventilated patients is a complex procedure that might require a check list [
29].
It was not among the objectives of this survey to collect data on VAP incidence rate in ICUs – there are much better sources for this – e.g. surveillance data for Europe [
1]. Rather we wanted to investigate the knowledge doctors had of the rates in their units. However data provided on VAP rates (not shown) are in the expected range as reported in surveillance networks [
1], giving some validity to our results.
Interpretation
The large participation to this survey reflects the interest of the ICU community in the issue of VAP prevention. To the extent that the selection bias, and the reporting bias in our results lead to overestimating VAP prevention practices in ICUs, weaknesses identified appear robust enough as to support targeted interventions for improvement. The priority for improving care of intubated patients is promoting the clinical practices with the lowest reported use (daily sedation vacation, and weaning protocols, oral care with chlorhexidine, and no ventilatory circuit change unless specifically indicated). Improving knowledge of clinical guidelines is far from sufficient to improve practices [
25,
30] but it is a prerequisite. ICUs doctors overwhelmingly agree that monitoring of VAP-related measures stimulates quality improvement but very few do it, although most are willing to do it. They could be helped to do so by learning how to produce reliable data (standardized case-definitions, methods for measuring compliance) with real-time feed-back at the ICU level; so that clinical staff could monitor their own trends over time. A compromise needs to be found between time-consuming data collection, and usefulness of data. Additional resources (human resources, information technology) might help, but some very simple measures can be implemented with minimal input, e.g. in some ICUs a panel with the number of days since last ICU-acquired infection (including VAP) is displayed on the board and updated daily (personal observations in Scotland, MLL). This study did not consider the issue of surveillance and reporting of outcome indicators at regional or national level, nor the merits (or otherwise) of evaluation of performance and feed-back, based on benchmarking (e.g. comparisons between units). Specific priorities might differ between countries.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the following collaborating partners for their contribution to the project: Afonso Elsa, Antonelli Massimo, Aragao Irene, Brun-Buisson Christian, Cardoso Teresa, Catry Boudewijn, Cunha Andreia, De Boom Dominique, François Guy, Hoste Eric, Kaier Klaus, Koulenti Despoina, Mura Ida, Muzlovic Igor, Popa Mircea Ioan, Preiser Charles, Rello Jordi, Savey Anne, Schouten Jeroen, Stevens Alan, Tamowicz Barbara, Via Gabriele, Zapletal Bernhard.
Data sharing
Funding
This study was supported by the European Commission (Project IMPLEMENT , commissioned by Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO), Grant Agreement N° 2009-11-07; (
http://www.eu-implement.info).
The funding source had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, nor in the decision to submit the manuscript.
Competing interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
MLL, MP, AA, MH and UF designed the study. MLL and AI collected and analyzed the data. MLL wrote the first draft of the article. MP, AA, MH, AL, SB, AI and EPH revised the report. All authors saw and approved the final report.