Evaluation of endotracheal-suctioning practices of critical-care nurses – An observational correlation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Endotracheal-suctioning (ETS) is a procedure that may constitute a risk factor for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) by increasing microbial colonization of the lower airway. Unsafe ETS practices have been observed worldwide during recent years. Because of adverse reactions, practioners need to take all necessary precautions to ensure patient safety and a high quality of nursing care. The aim of the present study was to evaluate critical-care nurses’ performance in relation to current recommendations in their daily practice prior to, during and post ETS events. Methods: A structured, non-participatory, observational study (n=40) was conducted using a 25-item best-practice information sheet to assess critical-care nurses’ ETS practices in a mixed medical-surgical intensive-care unit. One- sample- and independent-samples t -tests were used to compare critical-care nurses’ ETS performance against current recommendations within different ICU experience groups. Results: The quality of observed ETS practices was significantly lower than the required quality of care ( p <0.001). The most significant discrepancies were observed in ETS practices related to infection-control practices. Conclusion: Critical-care nurses are currently not following current ETS recommendations. Significant discrepancies, which may constitute a risk factor for VAP by increasing microbial colonization of the lower airway, were identified. Unsafe ETS practices may jeopardize patient safety, and thus the quality of nursing care. Educational interventions, clinical guidelines and adequate support need to be provided to critical-care nurses to assess and improve their professional capabilities and current practice. Regular auditing and prompt feedback would be beneficial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".