Perspectives on Incentive Spirometry Utility and Patient Protocols

BACKGROUND: Incentive spirometry (IS) is widely used to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications, despite limited clinical effectiveness data and a lack of standardized use protocols. We sought to evaluate health care professionals' perspectives on IS effectiveness and use procedures. METHODS: An online survey was distributed via social media and newsletters to relevant national nursing and respiratory care societies. Attitudes concerning IS were compared between the American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC) and the nursing societies. RESULTS: A total of 1,681 responses (83.8% completion rate) were received. The clear majority of these respondents agreed that IS is essential to patient care (92.7%), improves pulmonary function (92.0%), improves inspiratory capacity (93.0%), helps to prevent (96.6%) and to reverse (90.0%) atelectasis, helps to prevent (92.5%) and to reverse (68.4%) pneumonia, and is as effective as early ambulation (74.0%), deep-breathing exercises (88.2%), and directed coughing (79.8%). Furthermore, most health care professionals believed that IS should be used routinely preoperatively (78.1%) and postoperatively (91.1%), used every hour (59.8%), used for an average of 9.6 (95% CI 9.3-9.9) breaths per session, used to achieve breath holds of 7.8 (95% CI 7.4-8.2) s, used to reach an initial target inspiratory volume of 1,288.5 (95% CI 1,253.8-1,323.2) mL, and used to achieve a daily inspiratory volume improvement of 525.6 (95% CI 489.8-561.4) mL. Of all respondents, 89.6% believed they received adequate IS education and training. Respondents from the AARC endorsed significantly less agreement relative to the nursing societies on most parameters for IS utility. CONCLUSIONS: There was a major discrepancy between health care professionals' beliefs and the published clinical effectiveness data supporting IS. Despite reported adequate education on IS, variability in what health care professionals believed to be appropriate use underscores the literature's lack of standardization and evidence for specific use procedures.