ArticleInternal medicine journal2019
Outcomes of an initiative to improve inpatient safety of small bore thoracostomy tube insertion.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complications Rate and a Multidimensional Analysis of Their Causes of Tube Thoracostomy: A Mixed-Methods Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Development and content validation of the checklist for assessing placement of a small-bore chest tube (CAPS) for small-bore chest tube placement.AEM education and training · 2023Article
- A novel case of tracheal deviation secondary to percutaneous tracheostomy.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery cases · 2023Article
- Retrospective Evaluation of the Use and Complications of Small-Bore Wire-Guided Thoracostomy Tubes in Dogs and Cats: 156 Cases (2007-2019).Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Main Bronchus Penetration by Thoracostomy Tube: A Rare Inadvertent Complication.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2021Article
- Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Portable Small-Bore Chest Tube (Thoracic Egg Catheter) in Spontaneous Pneumothorax.The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntercostal chest catheter (ICC) insertion is a common hospital procedure with attendant risks including life-threatening complications such as pneumothorax and visceral damage.
aimTo investigate the effect of a quality improvement (QI) initiative on complications associated with inpatient thoracostomy tube insertion.
methodsFollowing an audit of ICC complications in inpatients over a 2-year period we implemented a comprehensive QI programme. This involved formal training in and mandatory use of thoracic ultrasound, standardisation of the procedure and documentation, a dedicated procedure room with nurses trained in assisting ICC insertion and senior supervision for medical staff. An audit over 2 years post-implementation of the QI protocol was compared with pre-implementation results.
resultsA total of 103 cases were reviewed pre-implementation and 105 cases were reviewed post-implementation of the QI programme. All procedures following the QI initiative were image guided compared to 23.3% of cases pre-implementation. The rate of developing a pneumothorax requiring intervention post-implementation was less than pre-implementation (1.9% vs 5.8% (P = 0.023). Post-implementation, there were no instances of dry taps, viscera perforation, clinically significant bleeding or wrong side ICC insertion and documentation improved.
conclusionQI initiative applied to thoracostomy tube insertion in hospital inpatients can reduce complications and improve procedure documentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.