ArticleCureus2023
Audit of Tracheostomy Care Practices in a Nigerian Tertiary Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit According to Published Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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, 1 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChest infections are a frequently encountered problem in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), more so in tracheostomised patients. This study aimed to audit the tracheostomy care practices in patients with neurosurgical pathologies in the ICU of Wellington Clinics Abuja, a tertiary neurosurgical hospital in Nigeria.
methodsWe conducted a closed-loop audit with mixed methods involving analysis of 24 patients who had tracheostomy within the first two weeks of neurosurgical pathology at a tertiary neurosurgical hospital and semi-structured interviews to determine tracheostomy care practices among the primary caregivers - nurses, intensivists, and doctors.
resultsOf the 161 ICU admissions in the first cycle, 22 patients received tracheostomy, 16 met the eligibility criteria. At re-audit (second cycle), eight of 40 patients met the criteria. All the patients received open suctioning through a dual cannula-cuffed tracheostomy tube and had independent portable suction units. In the baseline audit (first cycle), suction catheters were reused for 12-24 hours in each patient and were stored in varying combinations of normal saline and Savlon antiseptic (5 mg of cetrimide (0.5% w/w) and 1 mg of chlorhexidine digluconate (0.1% w/w)). The frequency, technique, and assessment of the need for airway suctioning were inconsistent among caregivers interviewed. All 16 patients had at least one episode of pneumonia, 10 patients had a second episode, and two patients had > two episodes. One mortality was recorded directly attributable to the complications of pneumonia. While in the re-audit, with adherence to recommendations, three patients suffered one episode of pneumonia and only one had a second episode. No mortality was recorded.
conclusionA standard practice guideline was necessary for tracheostomy care in our ICU. In low-resource settings, stated recommendations such as single-use suction catheters and improved hygienic practices can reduce rates of pneumonia in tracheostomised patients.
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.