A Comparison of Respiratory Care Workload With 2 Different Nebulizers

METHODS: We compared day-shift workload distribution in a post-thoracic-surgery ward during 2 consecutive 30-day periods. To deliver bronchodilators (3 mL unit dose), during the baseline period we used the VixOne nebulizer (average nebulization time 9 min), and during the intervention period we used the NebuTech HDN (nebulization time limited to 3 min). We recorded the per-shift number of various respiratory-therapy procedures, which have been assigned standard treatment times, and compared the per-shift numbers of procedures during the baseline and intervention periods.

RESULTS: The per-shift number of procedures were similar during the baseline and intervention periods (33.8/shift vs 33.3/shift, P= .68), as was the per-shift number of SVN treatments (11.9/shift vs 11.8/shift, respectively, P= .81). The per-shift time required for the procedures was greater during the baseline period (4.7 h vs 3.6 h, P< .001). The per-shift time available to deliver optional value-added respiratory therapies was higher in the intervention period (0.75 h vs 0.50 h, P< .04). The time savings from the faster nebulizer corresponded to 1.8 full-time equivalents and theoretical net annual savings of $66,491. We did not use treatment “stacking” (ie, simultaneous administration of SVN treatments to multiple patients).

CONCLUSIONS: The NebuTech HDN substantially reduces SVN-administration time, without adverse effects or events, and the time savings were used for value-added patient-care activities. Shorter treatment times can play a role in coping with the national shortage of qualified respiratory therapists.