ArticleJournal of infection prevention2020
Evaluation of prevention of ventilator-associated infections in four Australian intensive care units.
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical Care Nurses' Knowledge on Prevention of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: A Cross-sectional Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Volume-based subglottic secretion drainage: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective approaches to practice improvement require development of tailored interventions in collaboration with knowledge users.
objectivesTo explore critical care nurses' knowledge and adherence to best practice guidelines for management of patients with an artificial airway to minimise development of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
methodsA cross-sectional study was undertaken across four intensive care units that involved three phases: (1) survey of critical care nurses regarding their current practice; (2) observation of respiratory care delivery; and (3) chart audit. Key care processes evaluated were: (1) technique and adherence to standard precautions when performing endotracheal suction, cuff pressure checks and extubation; and (2) frequency of endotracheal suctioning and mouth care.
resultsObservational and chart audit data on the provision and documentation of respiratory care were collected for 36 nurse/patient dyads. Forty-six nurses were surveyed and the majority responded that endotracheal suctioning and mouth care should be performed 'as required' or every 2 hours (h). During observations of practice, no patient received mouth care every 2 h, nor had documentation of such. Inconsistent adherence to standard precautions and hand hygiene during respiratory care provision was observed. Chart audit indicated that nurses varied in the frequency of suctioning consistent with documented clinical assessment findings.
conclusionAlthough nurses had good knowledge for the management of artificial airways, this was not consistently translated into practice. Gaps were identified in relation to respiratory related infection prevention, the prevention of micro-aspiration of oropharyngeal secretions and in the provision of mouth care.
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.