ArticleQatar medical journal2022
Tracheostomy Practice Questionnaire: Development of a Valid and Reliable Tool for Assessing Tracheostomy Practice.
Article in Qatar medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTracheostomy is among the oldest and most common surgical procedures for critically ill patients. Over the past decade, tracheostomy practice has changed regarding its indication, timing, technique, decannulation, and follow-up procedures. A systematic assessment tool for tracheostomy could maximize the quality of care and improve patient outcomes. This study develops a tool for systematically evaluating tracheostomy-related practices, assesses its validity and reliability, and conducts pilot testing of the tool.
methodsThe questionnaire development process involved three rounds using the Delphi technique with eight experts in airway management. The experts were selected from multiple healthcare specialties and workplace backgrounds. There was a two-week interval between each discussion round. In February 2019, the questionnaire themes and statements were identified through qualitative content analysis. Subsequently, in March 2019, the developed tool was emailed to 31 heads of tracheostomy care teams at multiple national hospitals for further validity and reliability assessment.
resultsThe developed tool demonstrated reliability of 0.975. Tracheostomy-related practices showed acceptable levels in all 31 assessed hospitals with areas for improvement in the long-term follow-up domain.
conclusionThis study designed a tool for the comprehensive assessment of tracheostomy-related practices. It can be used to monitor institutional outcomes, which can reduce costs. Moreover, this tool can be employed to track the improvement or deterioration of tracheostomy-related procedures and long-term follow-up to facilitate institutional progress. In addition, this tool could be used for formative and summative assessments of tracheotomy practices at national and international levels.
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.