735 - Utility of Automated Pupillometry in Two Independent Pediatric Intensive Care Units: A
Survey Study
Monday, May 1, 2023
9:30 AM – 11:30 AM ET
Poster Number: 735 Publication Number: 735.401
Jessie Jiang, Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine, Austin, TX, United States; Erionne Huff, Driscoll Children's Hospital, Riviera, TX, United States; Ashley Hanna, Driscoll Children's Hospital, Corpus Christi, TX, United States; Hari P. Gourabathini, Indiana University School of Medicine, South Bend, IN, United States; UTPAL BHALALA, Driscoll Children's Hospital, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX, United States
Medical Student Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine Austin, Texas, United States
Background: Neurocritically Ill patients make up 16% of all pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions and account for higher mortality and morbidity compared to general PICU admissions. Automated pupillometry allows objective pupillary assessment and our recent study showed prognostic value of Automated Pupillometry in neurocritically ill children. A prior survey of adult ICU nurses investigated user-friendliness, barriers, and uptake of Automated Pupillometry, but there is a lack of similar information among PICU nurses. Objective: We aimed at assessing nursing perspectives about the utility of Automated Pupillometry in neurocritically ill children. Design/Methods: We conducted a web-based, cross-sectional, anonymous, Google™ survey of nurses at two independent pediatric ICUs which have been using Automated Pupillometry over the last four years. Survey included questions related to user-friendliness, barriers, uptake, frequency of use, and method of documenting findings of Automated Pupillometry. We collected responses as discrete variables, and compared proportions using the chi-squared test (significant p ≤ 0.05) and correlation coefficient. Results: A total of 31/62 (50%) nurses from 2 PICUs responded to the survey. A total of 19/31 (61.3%) nurses preferred to use the Automated Pupillometry on critically ill, intubated patients. Respondents rated the pupillometer a mean frequency of use of 6.52/10 and a mean user-friendliness of 7.77/10. There was a medium positive correlation between frequency of use and user-friendliness (r=0.57). Barriers to pupillometer included device-related such as technical issues, inability to find, etc. (25.8%) and provider-related such as education and training related to Pupillometry, provider notion about utility and difficulty with documenting (74.2%).
Conclusion(s): In our survey of two independent PICUs, 61% of nurses reported preferred use of Automated Pupillometer over Conventional Pupillary exam and a good user-friendliness of Automated Pupillometer. The survey revealed both device-related and provider-related barriers to the use of Automated Pupillometry.
