Book chapters will be unavailable on Saturday 24th August between 8am-12pm BST. This is for essential maintenance which will provide improved performance going forwards. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Introduction: Intranasal ketamine (INK) has an emerging role for procedural sedation (PSA) in children in the emergency department (ED). While INK is less invasive and requires fewer personnel than IV ketamine, widespread adoption in the paediatric ED would require strong nursing acceptance. To inform INK implementation strategies, we explored nursing perspectives surrounding INK, including perceived barriers to its adoption. Methods: Nurses in the paediatric ED of London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario were recruited by email. Two, one-hour, in-person focus groups were conducted on January 26 and February 2, 2018 using a semi-structured interview format. Transcription was performed by a professional medical transcription service and analyzed using an inductive qualitative approach involving code words corresponding to recurring topics. Thematic analysis was used to group similar codes into themes. The analytic process was managed using the NVivo 11 software package. Results: Results: Eight nurses participated. All nurses were female and had a mean of 8.9 (range: 2.5 - 26) years of pediatric emergency nursing experience. Seven nurses had experience monitoring and administering INK to children for PSA. Five themes emerged: 1) attributes of INK, 2) INK effects on patients and families, 3) INK effects on health care providers, 4) INK effects on the ED environment, and 5) uncertainty regarding INK's effectiveness, predictability, and fit into institutional sedation protocols. Subthemes included 1) perceptions that INK produced a relatively shallower, slower-onset, and/or less titratable sedation, 2) the importance of patient cooperation (i.e. INK may be preferred by providers for older patients undergoing relatively painful or long procedures), 3) belief that INK was an effective anxiolytic and sedative with the potential to improve nursing resource utilization, and 4) belief that physician resistance to change and lack of personal familiarity were barriers to adoption. Conclusion: Conclusions: We identified clinical advantages to using INK in children, the importance of selecting appropriate patients, and barriers to widespread INK adoption. Importantly, our findings highlighted uncertainty about INK's effectiveness and incorporation into sedation protocols. Our findings will inform future knowledge translation strategies when implementing INK in the clinical setting.