Comparison of open and closed suction on safety,efficacy and nursing time in a paediatric intensive care unit |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children''s Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, 3052 VIC, Australia;2. Unit 2, 36 Maidstone Street, Altona 3018, Australia;3. Royal Children''s Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, 3052 VIC, Australia;4. Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Australia;5. Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Australia;1. Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Directorate of Nursing Services;2. Marmara University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, Professor Emerita of Pediatric Nursing Department;1. School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University, Banyo, QLD 4104, Australia;2. Program for Optimising Outcomes for Mothers and Babies at Risk, Mater Research Institute – The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia;3. Department of Neonatology, Mater Mother’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Qld 4101, Australia;4. The School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia;1. Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Australia;2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Edith Cowan University, Australia;3. Institute of Health and Rehabilitation Research, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Australia;4. Institute of Higher Education and Nursing Research, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland;1. Nursing Department, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Higher School of Health, Eskisehir, Turkey;2. Nursing Department of Pediatrics, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundEndotracheal suctioning (ETS) is one of the most common procedures performed in the paediatric intensive care. The two methods of endotracheal suctioning used are known as open and closed suction, but neither method has been shown to be the superior suction method in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU).PurposeThe primary purpose was to compare open and closed suction methods from a physiological, safety and staff resource perspective.MethodsAll paediatric intensive care patients with an endotracheal tube were included. Between June and September 2011 alternative months were nominated as open or closed suction months. Data were prospectively collected including suction events, staff involved, time taken, use of saline, and change from pre-suction baseline in heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and oxygen saturation (SpO2). Blocked or dislodged ETTs were recorded as adverse events.FindingsClosed suction was performed more often per day (7.2 vs 6.0, p < 0.01), used significantly less nursing time (23 vs 38 min, p < 0.01) and had equivalent rates of adverse events compared to open suction (5 vs 3, p < 0.23). Saline lavage usage was significantly higher in the open suction group (18% vs 40%). Open suction demonstrated a greater reduction in SpO2 and nearly three times the incidence of increases in HR and MAP compared to closed suction. Reductions in MAP or HR were comparable across the two methods.ConclusionsIn conclusion, CS could be performed with less staffing time and number of nurses, less physiological disturbances to our patients and no significant increases in adverse events. |
| |
| Keywords: | Endotracheal suction Closed suction system Open suction system Suction catheter Paediatric |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
