Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34607576›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2021

Intensive care nurses' knowledge and practice of evidence-based recommendations for endotracheal suctioning: a multisite cross-sectional study in Changsha, China.

Wenjun Chen, Shuang Hu, Xiaoli Liu, Nina Wang, Junqiang Zhao, Peng Liu, Kaixia Chen, Jiale Hu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Factors influencing knowledge translation into critical care practice: The reality facing intensive care nurses in Limpopo Province.The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Wenjun Chen *School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ontario, Ottawa, Canada. wchen140@uottawa.ca.
Shuang Hu *School of Nursing, Changsha Medical University, Hunan, Changsha, People's Republic of China.
Xiaoli LiuOperating Room, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Nina WangDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, People's Republic of China.
Junqiang ZhaoSchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Peng LiuCardiovascular Surgery ICU, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, People's Republic of China.
Kaixia ChenPaediatric Unit, Meitan Chinese and Western Integrative Medicine Hospital, Zunyi, People's Republic of China.
Jiale HuDepartment of Nurse Anesthesia, Virginia Commonwealth University, VA, Richmond, USA.
University of Ottawa · CACentral South University · CNChangsha Medical University · CNPeking University · CNVirginia Commonwealth University · USXiangya Hospital Central South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndotracheal suctioning is one of the most frequently performed invasive procedures by intensive care nurses. Nurses should have adequate knowledge and skills to perform endotracheal suctioning based on the best evidence. Little is known about intensive care nurses' knowledge and practice of evidence-based endotracheal suctioning in Chinese hospitals. The purpose of this study was to investigate intensive care nurses' knowledge and practice of evidence-based recommendations regarding endotracheal suctioning. Specifically, the study aimed to examine (1) intensive care nurses' awareness of and adherence to endotracheal suctioning guidelines and (2) factors influencing their level of awareness and adherence.

methodsA cross-sectional survey of 310 staff nurses working in intensive care units was carried out at Changsha, China. Data on participants' characteristics, awareness of, and adherence to the endotracheal suctioning guidelines were collected through online questionnaires. Following univariate descriptive statistics, the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H test were performed using Software Package Statistical Analysis Version 23.0.

resultsA total of 281 nurses completed and returned the survey (response rate = 90.6 %). One-half to three-quarters of the nurses knew 21 of the 26 evidence-based practices and believed their practices followed the guidelines. Over half of them were unaware of the difference between open and close suctions and the pros and cons of using hyperinflation. Almost 50 % of nurses believed some of their clinical practices did not follow the evidence-based recommendations, such as not routinely using normal saline and using 80-120 mmHg suction pressure during endotracheal suctioning. Nurses with endotracheal suctioning training demonstrated significantly higher awareness of endotracheal suctioning recommendations and higher adherence levels than untrained nurses.

conclusionsThe study findings revealed that Chinese intensive care nurses lacked awareness of several essential evidence-based endotracheal suctioning practices, and there were gaps between their current practice and the guideline recommendations. Further research should emphasize revealing barriers and facilitators of implementing evidence-based endotracheal suctioning practices as well as developing context-suitable interventions for guideline implementation.

Indexed as

ChinaEvidence-based practiceIntensive care unitsNursingSuction

Identifiers

PMID34607576
PMCPMC8488919
OpenAlexW3119633988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.