Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29799998›Full record

ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2018

Association of Standardized Tracheostomy Care Protocol Implementation and Reinforcement With the Prevention of Life-Threatening Respiratory Events.

Maheer M Masood, Douglas R Farquhar, Christopher Biancaniello, Trevor G Hackman

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Multidisciplinary Safety Recommendations After Tracheostomy During COVID-19 Pandemic: State of the Art Review.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Review
  9. Errors in Description of Suction Required by Patients.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maheer M MasoodDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Douglas R FarquharDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Christopher BiancanielloDepartment of Respiratory Therapy, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Trevor G HackmanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceMucus plugging after tracheostomy is a preventable cause of respiratory distress. Implementation of standardized tracheostomy care guidelines may reduce the occurrence of fatal respiratory compromise.

objectiveTo determine the effect of implementing and reinforcing a standardized tracheostomy care protocol on the occurrence of acute life-threatening respiratory events. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsRetrospective cohort study of adult patients who received a tracheostomy between May 2014 and August 2016 at a tertiary care center. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient demographics, tracheostomy indication, rapid response for mucus plugging and other acute events, duration of hospital stay, and levels of care that the patients received were recorded through examination of clinical logs. Statistical analysis was conducted between patients before protocol implementation and patients after protocol implementation in terms of rapid-response use, and intragroup comparison of the mean length of stay in various hospital units was also analyzed.

resultsA total of 247 patients (89 women [36%]; mean [SD] age, 58.5 [12.3] years), 117 preprotocol and 130 postprotocol, met inclusion criteria. Of the 130 patients in the postprotocol cohort, 123 (93%) were on the new tracheostomy care protocol. Preprotocol rapid-response rate was 21 of 117 patients (17.9%) and postprotocol response rate was 12 of 130 patients (9.2%) for a difference of 8.7% (95% CI, 0.2%-18.0%). In terms of mucus plugging, preprotocol rate was 8 of 117 patients (6.8%) and the postprotocol rate was 1 of 130 patients (0.8%) for a difference of 6.0% (95% CI, 1.3%-12.2%). Intragroup difference of the mean time spent (days) in various care units between patients in the no rapid-response group vs rapid-response group demonstrated clinically meaningful longer stay for rapid responses in both preprotocol and postprotocol groups for the intensive care unit (preprotocol, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.03-3.03 vs postprotocol, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.49-4.45) and step down units (preprotocol, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.77-2.02 vs postprotocol, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.44). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation and reinforcement of a standardized tracheostomy care protocol was associated with a reduction in the occurrences of rapid-response calls for life-threatening mucus plugging and is recommended for clinical practice. In addition, length of stay in the intensive care unit and intermediate surgical care unit was increased in a clinically meaningful way for patients who experienced a rapid-response event.

Indexed as

MucusAirway ObstructionClinical ProtocolsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaRespiratory InsufficiencyRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSuctionTracheostomy

Identifiers

PMID29799998
PMCPMC6145743
OpenAlexW2803151710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.