Prophylactic Use of Ondansetron to Mitigate Hemodynamic Changes with Spinal Anesthesia
Theoretical Framework
Development of a clinical inquiry, gathering evidence, and translation through the the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice Model.
To guide project development, we utilized the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice (JHNEBP) Model.[31] Using the JHNEBP Model, we developed a clinical question and explored recent literature for our clinical inquiry. Throughout our search, we utilized a three-step process known as the Practice Question, Evidence, and Translation (PET) process to ensure a systematic approach to developing a clinical inquiry. [31]
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Continuing the PET process, we refined our clinical question, identified stakeholders, determined roles, and scheduled meetings.[31] During the evidence phase of the PET process, we searched for high-quality evidence and summarized the evidence found. After completing the first two steps, we developed an evidence synthesis matrix and a recommendation for further action based on the evidence synthesis results. [31]
During this final phase, we direct our project to an explanation of how prophylactic ondansetron may mitigate hypotension and reduce vasopressor usage after SABs.
Clinical Inquiry:
“In patients receiving a subarachnoid block (SAB), how does prophylactic ondansetron, compared with no ondansetron, affect hemodynamic lability (heart rate and blood pressure) perioperatively?”