Exploration of difficulty accessing the mouths of intubated and mechanically ventilated adults for oral care: A video and photographic elicitation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore descriptors of difficulty accessing the mouths of intubated and mechanically ventilated adults for oral care, consequences, modifiable antecedents and recommendations for improving care delivery. BACKGROUND: Nurses report oral access and care delivery difficulty in most mechanically ventilated patients. DESIGN: A prospective qualitative descriptive design. METHODS: Data were collected using video and photographic elicitation interviews focused on delivery of oral care. Directed content analysis was used to explore descriptive categories. Reporting used the SRQR guidelines. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A university-affiliated hospital in Toronto, Canada. Participants included clinicians experienced in accessing the oral space of adults representing nursing, medicine, dentistry and allied health professionals. FINDINGS: We recruited 18 participants; 9 representing critical care and 9 other specialties frequently accessing the mouth, that is dentistry. Descriptors for observed difficulty accessing the oral cavity were "oral crowding with tubes" and "aversive patient responses", which were considered to result in insufficient oral care. Participants perceived aversive patient responses (e.g. biting, turning head side to side, gagging, coughing) as a consequence of forced introduction of instruments inside a crowded mouth. A key finding identified by participants was the observation of substantial procedural pain during oral care interventions. Potentially modifiable antecedents to difficult oral care delivery identified were procedural pain, oral health deterioration (e.g. xerostomia) and lack of interprofessional team problem-solving. Recommendations to address these antecedents included patient preparation for oral care through verbal and nonverbal cueing, pharmacological and nonpharmacological strategies, and ICU interprofessional education. CONCLUSIONS: Oral care in mechanically ventilated adults is complex and painful. Visual research methods offer important advantages for oral care exploration including its ability to reveal less visible aspects of the nurse-patient encounter, thereby enabling novel insights and care. RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Interprofessional education and training in oral health and care interventions tailored to mechanically ventilated patients are recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".