ArticleJBI evidence implementation2025
Oral hygiene in critically ill patients at a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil: a best practice implementation project.
Article in JBI evidence implementation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis project aimed to promote evidence-based practices relat. ed to the oral health of critically ill patients in an intensive care unit in Brazil.
introductionThe oral hygiene of patients on mechanical ventilation is an essential component of nursing care quality, and well-defined guidelines ensure appropriate care. Mechanical ventilation is associated with the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia, which can increase mortality, length of stay, time on mechanical ventilation, and hospital costs.
methodsThis project was guided by the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework, which consists of seven stages: (1) identification of the area of practice to be changed, (2) involvement of change agents, (3) context assessment and readiness for change, (4) review of practices against evidence-based audit criteria, (5) implementation of practice changes, (6) reassessment of practices using a follow-up audit, and (7) consideration of the sustainability of changes in practice.
resultsFour audit criteria were developed to evaluate compliance with best practices. In the follow-up audit, Criteria 1, 2, and 3 obtained compliance of ≥ 80%. Thus, for Criterion 1, all the patients on mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours were evaluated by the oral medicine team, resulting in 100% compliance. For Criterion 2 on appropriate oral hygiene measures, a compliance rate of 80% was achieved. For Criterion 3, 39 professionals (90.7%) participated in educational activities related to the oral health protocol for critically ill patients, obtaining 90.7% compliance. For Criterion 4 regarding patients being evaluated before receiving any oral health care, improvement was low (only 50%), revealing the need for further improvement.
conclusionThis best practice project improved the professional practice of nursing staff and increased compliance with best practices for the oral health of critically ill patients. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A175.
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.