Efficacy of a Nursing Checklist During Mechanical Ventilation in Patients With Severe Pneumonia.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Miao Guo, Li Qiao, Xiaohui Xing, Jing Zhao, Zheng Wang
{"title":"Efficacy of a Nursing Checklist During Mechanical Ventilation in Patients With Severe Pneumonia.","authors":"Miao Guo, Li Qiao, Xiaohui Xing, Jing Zhao, Zheng Wang","doi":"10.1111/nicc.70592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Severe pneumonia is a respiratory disease associated with high morbidity and mortality, often necessitating mechanical ventilation. However, prolonged mechanical ventilation is associated with an increased risk of complications and higher use of healthcare resources. The efficacy of a nursing checklist on airway management during mechanical ventilation in patients with severe pneumonia has not been extensively investigated.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a nursing checklist in improving airway management during mechanical ventilation for patients with severe pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A prospective, assessor-blind, single-centre, randomized controlled trial was conducted, and 100 patients diagnosed with severe pneumonia who required mechanical ventilation were enrolled in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either the Nursing Checklist group (NC group) or the Routine Management group (RM group). The primary outcome measures included the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, tidal volume (TV), respiratory rate (f) and the oxygenation index (the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure [PaO<sub>2</sub>] to fractional inspired oxygen [FiO<sub>2</sub>] or PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub>).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter among patients in the NC group compared to those in the RM group (p < 0.001), but the difference in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) between the two groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). By Day 14, the APACHE II score in the NC group was significantly lower than that in the RM group (p < 0.001), and improvements in TV, f and PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> in the NC group were also statistically significant compared to the RM group (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, it was observed that the implementation of a nursing checklist was associated with significant improvements in the quality of airway care and patient outcomes during mechanical ventilation in patients with severe pneumonia, leading to a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation and improved oxygenation status and prognosis of patients.</p><p><strong>Relevance to clinical practice: </strong>These findings provide valuable insights for future research and clinical practice, and it is recommended that the use of a nursing checklist be integrated into clinical practice to improve the quality and safety of airway management for patients with severe pneumonia on mechanical ventilation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51264,"journal":{"name":"Nursing in Critical Care","volume":"31 5","pages":"e70592"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13472751/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing in Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.70592","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Severe pneumonia is a respiratory disease associated with high morbidity and mortality, often necessitating mechanical ventilation. However, prolonged mechanical ventilation is associated with an increased risk of complications and higher use of healthcare resources. The efficacy of a nursing checklist on airway management during mechanical ventilation in patients with severe pneumonia has not been extensively investigated.

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a nursing checklist in improving airway management during mechanical ventilation for patients with severe pneumonia.

Study design: A prospective, assessor-blind, single-centre, randomized controlled trial was conducted, and 100 patients diagnosed with severe pneumonia who required mechanical ventilation were enrolled in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either the Nursing Checklist group (NC group) or the Routine Management group (RM group). The primary outcome measures included the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, tidal volume (TV), respiratory rate (f) and the oxygenation index (the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure [PaO2] to fractional inspired oxygen [FiO2] or PaO2/FiO2).

Results: The duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter among patients in the NC group compared to those in the RM group (p < 0.001), but the difference in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) between the two groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). By Day 14, the APACHE II score in the NC group was significantly lower than that in the RM group (p < 0.001), and improvements in TV, f and PaO2/FiO2 in the NC group were also statistically significant compared to the RM group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In this study, it was observed that the implementation of a nursing checklist was associated with significant improvements in the quality of airway care and patient outcomes during mechanical ventilation in patients with severe pneumonia, leading to a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation and improved oxygenation status and prognosis of patients.

Relevance to clinical practice: These findings provide valuable insights for future research and clinical practice, and it is recommended that the use of a nursing checklist be integrated into clinical practice to improve the quality and safety of airway management for patients with severe pneumonia on mechanical ventilation.

重症肺炎患者机械通气护理清单的效果观察。
背景:重症肺炎是一种高发病率和死亡率的呼吸系统疾病,通常需要机械通气。然而,延长机械通气与并发症的风险增加和医疗资源的使用增加有关。护理清单在重症肺炎患者机械通气期间气道管理中的作用尚未得到广泛调查。目的:本研究旨在评估护理清单在改善重症肺炎患者机械通气期间气道管理方面的有效性。研究设计:前瞻性、评估盲、单中心、随机对照试验,纳入100例诊断为重症肺炎且需要机械通气的患者。参与者被随机分配到护理检查表组(NC组)或常规管理组(RM组)。主要观察指标包括机械通气时间、重症监护病房住院时间、急性生理和慢性健康评估II (APACHE II)评分、潮气量(TV)、呼吸频率(f)和氧合指数(动脉氧分压[PaO2]与分次吸入氧[FiO2]或PaO2/FiO2之比)。结果:NC组患者机械通气时间明显短于RM组(p < 0.05)。到第14天,NC组的APACHE II评分明显低于RM组(p 2/FiO2), NC组与RM组比较也有统计学意义(p)。在本研究中,我们观察到护理清单的实施与重症肺炎患者机械通气期间气道护理质量和患者预后的显著改善相关,导致机械通气持续时间的显著减少,患者氧合状态和预后的改善。与临床实践的相关性:这些发现为未来的研究和临床实践提供了有价值的见解,建议将护理清单的使用纳入临床实践,以提高机械通气重症肺炎患者气道管理的质量和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing in Critical Care is an international peer-reviewed journal covering any aspect of critical care nursing practice, research, education or management. Critical care nursing is defined as the whole spectrum of skills, knowledge and attitudes utilised by practitioners in any setting where adults or children, and their families, are experiencing acute and critical illness. Such settings encompass general and specialist hospitals, and the community. Nursing in Critical Care covers the diverse specialities of critical care nursing including surgery, medicine, cardiac, renal, neurosciences, haematology, obstetrics, accident and emergency, neonatal nursing and paediatrics. Papers published in the journal normally fall into one of the following categories: -research reports -literature reviews -developments in practice, education or management -reflections on practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书