Ventilator circuit and secretion management strategies: A Franco-Canadian survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the use of ventilator circuit and secretion management strategies in France and Canada. DESIGN: Binational cross-sectional survey. POPULATION: Intensive care unit (ICU) directors in French and Canadian university hospitals. MEASUREMENTS: We compared responses between countries regarding the use of seven circuit and secretion strategies, the rationales against their use, decisional responsibility for these strategies, whether ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) practice was audited, and whether VAP prevention guidelines addressing these strategies were used. RESULTS: The response rate was 72/84 (85.7%) for French and 31/32 (96.9%) for Canadian ICUs. Endotracheal intubation was predominantly oral in both countries. Changing the ventilator circuits only for every new patient was more frequent in France than in Canada (p < .0001). Heated humidifiers were used more in Canada than France (p = .0003). Closed endotracheal suctioning was used more frequently in Canada (p < .0001). In both countries, subglottic secretion drainage and kinetic beds were rarely used. Semirecumbent positioning was reported more often by French than Canadian ICUs (p = .003). Reasons for nonuse of these strategies included adverse effects (heat and moisture exchangers), cost (kinetic beds), lack of convincing benefit (subglottic secretion drainage), and nurse inconvenience (semirecumbency). Decisional responsibility for each strategy differed among institutions. VAP prevention practice was periodically reviewed in 53% of French and 68% of Canadian ICUs (p = .20). VAP prevention guidelines were used in 64% and 30% of these ICUs, respectively (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not support the notion that published recommendations substantially impact reported use of several ventilator circuit and secretion management strategies. Based on the use of more frequent ventilator circuit changes, closed suctioning systems, heated humidifiers, and respiratory therapists, ventilator circuit and secretion management practice appears more costly in Canada than in France.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".