STUDY OBJECTIVE: Endotracheal suctioning in intubated patients is routinely applied in most ICUs but may have negative side effects. We hypothesised that on-demand minimally invasive suctioning would have fewer side effects than routine deep endotracheal suctioning, and would be comparable in duration of intubation, length of stay in the ICU, and ICU mortality.DESIGN: Randomised prospective clinical trial.SETTING: In two ICUs at University Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands.PATIENTS: Three hundred and eighty-three patients requiring endotracheal intubation for more than 24 h.INTERVENTIONS: Routine endotracheal suctioning (n=197) using a 49-cm suction catheter was compared with on-demand minimally invasive airway suctioning (n=186) using a suction catheter only 29 cm long.MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: No differences were found between the routine endotracheal suctioning group and the minimally invasive airway suctioning group in duration of intubation [median (range) 4 (1-75) versus 5 (1-101) days], ICU-stay [median (range) 8 (1-133) versus 7 (1-221) days], ICU mortality (15% versus 17%), and incidence of pulmonary infections (14% versus 13%). Suction-related adverse events occurred more frequently with RES interventions than with MIAS interventions; decreased saturation: 2.7% versus 2.0% (P=0.010); increased systolic blood pressure 24.5% versus 16.8% (P<0.001); increased pulse pressure rate 1.4% versus 0.9% (P=0.007); blood in mucus 3.3% versus 0.9% (P<0.001).CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that minimally invasive airway suctioning in intubated ICU-patients had fewer side effects than routine deep endotracheal suctioning, without being inferior in terms of duration on intubation, length of stay, and mortality.
Background: Advanced medical technologies (AMTs), such as respiratory support or suction devices, are increasingly used in home settings and incidents may well result in patient harm. Information about risks and incidents can contribute to improved patient safety, provided that those are reported and analysed systematically. Objectives: To identify the frequency of incidents when using AMTs in home settings, the effects on patient outcomes and the actions taken by nurses following identification of incidents. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 209 home care nurses in the Netherlands working with infusion therapy, parenteral nutrition or morphine pumps, combining data from a questionnaire and registration forms covering more than 13 000 patient contacts. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: We identified 140 incidents (57 adverse events; 83 near misses). The frequencies in relation to the number of patient contacts were 2.7% for infusion therapy, 1.3% for parenteral nutrition and 2.6% for morphine pumps. The main causes were identified as related to the product (43.6%), the organisation of care (27.9%), the nurse as a user (15.7%) and the environment (12.9%). 40% of all adverse events resulted in mild to severe harm to the patient. Incidents had been discussed in the team (70.7%), with the patient/informal caregiver(s) (50%), or other actions had been taken (40.5%). 15.5% of incidents had been formally reported according to the organisation's protocol. Conclusions: Most incidents are attributed to product failures. Although such events predominantly cause no harm, a significant proportion of patients do suffer some degree of harm. There is considerable underreporting of incidents with AMTs in home care. This study has identified a discrepancy in quality circles: learning takes place at the team level rather than at the organisational level.
