Determining the impact of a bowel management protocol on patients and clinicians' compliance in cardiac intensive care: A mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Bowel management protocols standardise care and, potentially, improve the incidence of diarrhoea and constipation in intensive care. However, little research exists reporting compliance with such protocols in intensive care throughout patients' stay. Furthermore, there is a limited exploration of the barriers and enablers to bowel management protocols following their implementation, an important aspect of improving compliance. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of a bowel management protocol on the incidence of constipation and diarrhoea, levels of compliance, and to explore the enablers and barriers associated with its use in intensive care. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted in cardiac intensive care using two phases: (a) a retrospective case review of patients' hospital notes, before and after the protocol implementation, establishing the levels of diarrhoea and constipation and levels of compliance; (b) focus groups involving users of the protocol, 6 months following its implementation, exploring the barriers and enablers in practice. RESULTS AND FINDINGS: Fifty-one patients' notes were reviewed during phase one: 30 pre-implementation and 21 post-implementation. Following the protocol implementation, there was a tendency for a higher incidence of constipation and less severe cases of diarrhoea. Overall compliance with the protocol was low (2.3%). However, there was evidence of behavioural change following protocol implementation, including less variation in aperients given and a shorter, less varied time period between starting enteral feed and administering aperients. Several themes emerged from the focus groups: barriers and enablers to the protocol characteristics and dissemination; barriers to bowel assessment; nurse as a barrier; medical involvement and protocol outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The bowel management protocol implementation generated some positive outcomes to bowel care practices. However, compliance was low and until there is improvement, through overcoming the barriers identified, the impact of such protocols in practice will remain largely unknown.

The Use of Bowel Protocols in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Constipation is common among critically ill patients and has been associated with adverse patient outcomes. Many ICUs have developed bowel protocols to treat constipation; however, their effect on clinical outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to determine the impact of bowel protocols in critically ill adults. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference abstracts until January 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for randomized controlled trials comparing bowel protocols to control (placebo, no protocol, or usual care) in critically ill adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently, and in duplicate, extracted study characteristics, outcomes, assessed risk of bias, and appraised the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: We retrieved 4,520 individual articles, and excluded 4,332 articles during title and abstract screening and 181 articles during full-text screening. Four trials, including 534 patients, were eligible for analysis. The use of a bowel protocol was associated with a trend toward a reduction in constipation (risk ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.25-1.01]; p = 0.05; low-quality evidence); no reduction in tolerance of enteral feeds (risk ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.62-1.42]; p = 0.77; low-quality evidence), and no change in the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, 0.01 d [95% CI, -2.67 to 2.69 d]; low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Large, rigorous, randomized control trials are needed to determine whether bowel protocols impact patient-important outcomes in critically ill adults.