MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394785587 · doi:10.1111/nicc.13076

Use of nursing care bundles for the prevention of ventilator‐associated pneumonia in low‐middle income countries: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4394785587 on OpenAlexaff
Amyna Ismail Rehmani, Alesia Au, Carmel Montgomery, Elizabeth Papathanassoglou

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing in Critical Care · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineMEDLINEVentilator-associated pneumoniaInfection controlIntensive careNursingAuditHealth careData extractionPneumoniaIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewPsychological interventionIntensive care unit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a significant concern in low-middle-income countries (LMICs), where the burden of hospital-acquired infections is high, and resources are low. Evidence-based guidelines exist for preventing VAP; however, these guidelines may not be adequately utilized in intensive care units of LMICs. AIM: This scoping review examined the literature regarding the use of nursing care bundles for VAP prevention in LMICs, to understand the knowledge, practice and compliance of nurses to these guidelines, as well as the barriers preventing the implementation of these guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: The review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) five-stage framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines guided reporting. Searches were performed across six databases: CINAHL, Medline, Embase, Global Health, Scopus and Cochrane, resulting in 401 studies. RESULTS: After screening all studies against the eligibility criteria, 21 studies were included in the data extraction stage of the review. Across the studies, the knowledge and compliance of nurses regarding VAP prevention were reported as low to moderate. Several factors, ranging from insufficient knowledge to a lack of adequate guidelines for VAP management, served as contributing factors. Multiple barriers prevented nurses from adhering to VAP guidelines effectively, including a lack of audit/surveillance, absence of infection prevention and control (IPC) teams and inadequate training opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need for adequate quality improvement procedures and more efforts to conduct and translate research into practice in intensive care units in LMIC. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: IPC practices are vital to protect vulnerable patients in intensive care units from developing infections and complications that worsen their prognosis. Critical care nurses should be trained and reinforced to practice effective bundle care to prevent VAP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing in Critical CareSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207