Clinical Practice and Barriers of Ventilatory Support Management in COVID-19 Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Survey of Respiratory Therapists

Alqahtani, Jaber S.; Aldabayan, Yousef S.; AlAhmari, Mohammed D.; AlRabeeah, Saad M.; Aldhahir, Abdulelah M.; Alghamdi, Saeed M.; Oyelade, Tope; Althobiani, Malik; Alrajeh, Ahmed M.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the clinical practice and barriers of ventilatory support management in COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia among respiratory therapists. METHODS: A validated questionnaire comprising three parts was distributed to all critical care respiratory therapists registered with the Saudi Society for Respiratory Care through the official social networks. RESULTS: A total of 74 respiratory therapists completed the survey. The mean (±standard deviation) of intensive care unit beds was 67 ± 79. Clinical presentation (54%) and arterial blood gas (38%) were the two main diagnostic tools used to initiate ventilatory support. While protocols for the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV; 81%) were widely available, participants had limited availability of protocols for the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV; 34%) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC; 34%). In mild cases of COVID-19, most respondents used HFNC (57%), while IMV was mostly used in moderate (43%) and severe (93%) cases. Regular ventilator check was mostly done every 4 h (57%). BiPAP (47.3%) and full-face masks (45.9%) were the most used mode and interface, respectively, while pressure-regulated volume control (55.4%) and pressure control (27%) were the most used mechanical ventilation modes for COVID-19 patients. In terms of use of proning, 62% used it on IMV, while 26% reported using awake proning. Staff shortage (51.4%), personal protective equipment (PPE) shortage (51.4%), increased workload (45.9%), inadequate training (43.2%) and lack of available protocols and policies (37.8%) were the main barriers. CONCLUSION: Ventilatory support management of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia was inconsistent with the global practice, lacked uniformity, and there was limited use of standard protocols/treatment guidelines. Shortage of staff and PPE, increased workload and insufficient training were the most prevalent barriers.