
Background: Managing mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU requires optimizing both ventilation strategies and sedation protocols. This study investigates the impact of interdisciplinary collaboration between respiratory therapists (RTs), laboratory specialists (LS), and pharmacists on patient outcomes in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 200 ICU patients at a tertiary hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: those receiving interdisciplinary care, with RTs and LS optimizing ventilation based on blood gas analysis and pharmacists managing sedation, and those receiving traditional care. Primary outcomes included ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence. Secondary outcomes included sedation-related complications, frequency of ventilator adjustments, and patient comfort. Results: The interdisciplinary care group had significantly shorter ICU stays (10.3 vs. 14.1 days, p < 0.001) and mechanical ventilation duration (6.8 vs. 9.4 days, p < 0.001). The incidence of VAP was lower in the interdisciplinary group (8% vs. 16%, p = 0.048), with fewer sedation-related complications, including over-sedation and delirium. Additionally, ventilator adjustments were more frequent in the interdisciplinary group (5.1 vs. 2.8 per patient, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Interdisciplinary collaboration involving RTs, LS, and pharmacists improves outcomes for mechanically ventilated ICU patients, including reduced ICU stays, lower VAP incidence, and fewer sedation-related complications. This study underscores the importance of a team-based approach in optimizing critical care.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
