. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Crit Care. 2017 Jul;26(4):e38–e47. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2017544

Table 3.

The relationship between provider attitudes and ABCDE bundle adherence: Adjusted odds ratios^€^¥

Provider Attitudes	Results, OR (CI)^*

	ABCDE bundle	A^ǂ	B^ǂ	C	D^ǂ	E

Perceived Ease of Completion
•Workload burden	0.47 (0.28–0.79)	-	-	0.69 (0.35–1.36)	-	0.65 (0.37–1.14)
•Difficult to carry out	0.29 (0.08–1.07)	-	-	0.39 (0.15–1.02)	-	0.41 (0.19–0.90)

Perceived Safety of ABCDE Bundle Implementation	0.51 (0.10–2.65)	-	-	0.84 (0.13–5.58)	-	2.63 (0.75–9.23)

Confidence Performing ABCDE Bundle	0.37 (0.10–1.35)	-	-	0.31 (0.08–1.18)	-	1.25 (0.41–3.81)

Perceived Strength of Evidence for ABCDE Bundle	0.69 (0.14–3.35)	-	-	1.08 (0.23–5.10)	-	3.46 (0.81–14.87)

Abbreviations: A=Awakening trial, B=Breathing trial, C=Coordination (breathing trial preceded by awakening trial), D=Delirium assessment/management, E=Early mobility, ABCDE=Awakening and Breathing trial Coordination, Delirium assessment/management, Early mobility, OR=odds ratio, CI=confidence interval

^€

Select patient covariates included in all regression analyses included age, APACHE II score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Ventilator status was also included as a covariate in the logistic regression for ABCDE bundle and Early mobility adherence.

^¥

This table reflects the attitudes of 268 unique providers who cared for 101 patient clusters with 727 total opportunities for ABCDE bundle and individual component adherence at the unit level.

Bolded results are statistically significant at a p <0.05 level.

^ǂ

There was not enough variation (i.e., nonadherence) in Awakening trial, Breathing trial, and Delirium assessment/management adherence; therefore, odds ratios could not be calculated.