Recommended Citation
Reindl L, Pagels B, Shallcross M, Dieiev V. Assessing Ventilator Education Needs in Ukrainian Intensive Care Units: Informing Future Training Initiatives. Presented at Scientific Day; May 20, 2026; Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
Background/Significance:
Mechanical ventilation (MV) is lifesaving but requires consistent, evidence-based application to prevent patient harm. Despite international guidelines, global practice remains inconsistent, and skill gaps persist in areas such as waveform interpretation, patient–ventilator dyssynchrony, and ventilator liberation. In Ukraine, war-related system strain and variable access to standardized training may amplify gaps in MV practice.
Purpose:
To describe self-reported MV competence, perceived barriers, and preferred training formats among Ukrainian ICU clinicians to inform future MV education initiatives.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous web-based survey of clinicians caring for ventilated adults in Ukraine, distributed by the Ukrainian Society of Anesthesiology between September 20 and December 9, 2025. Survey items addressed clinician characteristics, MV competence (10 Likert-scale items), MV practices, perceived barriers, prior training, and preferred learning formats. Duplicate entries were removed; analyses were descriptive.
Results:
We analyzed 212 responses representing 16 regions/oblasts. Most respondents (98.1%) were Anesthesiologists/Intensivists. Over half of respondents reported more than 10 years of MV experience (57.5%) and half practiced in regional/district hospitals (50.0%). Highest confidence, utilizing a 5- point Likert scale, was reported for preventing ventilator-associated complications (80.6%) and applying lung-protective ventilation (77.8%). Confidence in mobilizing patients (55.5%) and troubleshooting ventilator technical issues (58.0%) were lower. Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation (SIMV) was a commonly used mode of MV (75.9%); propofol (80.2%) and dexmedetomidine (73.6%) were frequently used sedatives. Key barriers included insufficient staffing/workload (69.2%), lack of clear institutional protocols (56.2%), and limited hands-on training (52.9%). Priority training topics focused on patient-specific ventilation strategies (77.4%), waveform interpretation/dyssynchrony (66.5%), and complication management (59.4%). Preferred formats included hands-on workshops (82.1%), bedside mentorship (55.2%), and simulation (50.9%).
Conclusion:Ukrainian intensivists report moderate MV confidence with specific gaps in troubleshooting, dyssynchrony management, and mobilization amid staffing and protocol barriers. Findings support a blended, competency-based curriculum emphasizing practical, simulation-supported, and mentored training.
Presentation Notes
Presented at Scientific Day; May 20, 2026; Milwaukee, WI.
Full Text of Presentation
wf_yes
Document Type
Poster
Open Access
Available to all.
Assessing Ventilator Education Needs in Ukrainian Intensive Care Units: Informing Future Training Initiatives
Background/Significance:
Mechanical ventilation (MV) is lifesaving but requires consistent, evidence-based application to prevent patient harm. Despite international guidelines, global practice remains inconsistent, and skill gaps persist in areas such as waveform interpretation, patient–ventilator dyssynchrony, and ventilator liberation. In Ukraine, war-related system strain and variable access to standardized training may amplify gaps in MV practice.
Purpose:
To describe self-reported MV competence, perceived barriers, and preferred training formats among Ukrainian ICU clinicians to inform future MV education initiatives.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous web-based survey of clinicians caring for ventilated adults in Ukraine, distributed by the Ukrainian Society of Anesthesiology between September 20 and December 9, 2025. Survey items addressed clinician characteristics, MV competence (10 Likert-scale items), MV practices, perceived barriers, prior training, and preferred learning formats. Duplicate entries were removed; analyses were descriptive.
Results:
We analyzed 212 responses representing 16 regions/oblasts. Most respondents (98.1%) were Anesthesiologists/Intensivists. Over half of respondents reported more than 10 years of MV experience (57.5%) and half practiced in regional/district hospitals (50.0%). Highest confidence, utilizing a 5- point Likert scale, was reported for preventing ventilator-associated complications (80.6%) and applying lung-protective ventilation (77.8%). Confidence in mobilizing patients (55.5%) and troubleshooting ventilator technical issues (58.0%) were lower. Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation (SIMV) was a commonly used mode of MV (75.9%); propofol (80.2%) and dexmedetomidine (73.6%) were frequently used sedatives. Key barriers included insufficient staffing/workload (69.2%), lack of clear institutional protocols (56.2%), and limited hands-on training (52.9%). Priority training topics focused on patient-specific ventilation strategies (77.4%), waveform interpretation/dyssynchrony (66.5%), and complication management (59.4%). Preferred formats included hands-on workshops (82.1%), bedside mentorship (55.2%), and simulation (50.9%).
Conclusion:Ukrainian intensivists report moderate MV confidence with specific gaps in troubleshooting, dyssynchrony management, and mobilization amid staffing and protocol barriers. Findings support a blended, competency-based curriculum emphasizing practical, simulation-supported, and mentored training.
Affiliations
Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center