Tracheostomy decannulation methods and procedures for assessing readiness for decannulation in adults: a systematic scoping review.

Q3 Medicine
John Kutsukutsa, Desmond Kuupiel, Anna Monori-Kiss, Paula Del Rey-Puech, Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson
{"title":"Tracheostomy decannulation methods and procedures for assessing readiness for decannulation in adults: a systematic scoping review.","authors":"John Kutsukutsa,&nbsp;Desmond Kuupiel,&nbsp;Anna Monori-Kiss,&nbsp;Paula Del Rey-Puech,&nbsp;Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the undisputable benefits of tracheostomy, it has been reported to have links with impaired communication, reduced quality of life and a risk of health complications such as bleeding, tracheal stenosis and in some cases resulting in mortality. There is a paucity of literature on tracheostomy decannulation methods and procedures, leaving the decision to expert opinion and institutional guidelines. This study aimed to map evidence on methods and procedures of tracheostomy decannulation in adults and assessment of readiness for decannulation, to reveal knowledge gaps and inform further research. We conducted a systematic search of peer reviewed and grey literature on PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Union Catalogue of Theses and Dissertations via SABINET Online, World Cat Dissertations and Theses via OCLC, WHO library and governmental websites from 1985 to present. Following title screening, abstract and full article screening was performed by two independent reviewers guided by the eligibility criteria. Data from included studies were extracted, collated, summarized and synthesized into the following themes: assessment, removal, monitoring and definition of failure of decannulation. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version 2011. Twenty-five out of 51 screened articles were eligible for data extraction. There was wide variation in the assessment methods employed across and within similar patient groups. The common themes that emerged in the assessment for readiness for decannulation are informed consent, clinical stability, airway patency, physiological decannulation, swallowing assessment, level of consciousness, effectiveness of cough and clearance of secretions. In conclusion, the current body of evidence is inadequate and requires further research, particularly validation of different parameters used. A protocol approach to decannulation may be inappropriate but rather an algorithmic approach using validated parameters.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000166","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Despite the undisputable benefits of tracheostomy, it has been reported to have links with impaired communication, reduced quality of life and a risk of health complications such as bleeding, tracheal stenosis and in some cases resulting in mortality. There is a paucity of literature on tracheostomy decannulation methods and procedures, leaving the decision to expert opinion and institutional guidelines. This study aimed to map evidence on methods and procedures of tracheostomy decannulation in adults and assessment of readiness for decannulation, to reveal knowledge gaps and inform further research. We conducted a systematic search of peer reviewed and grey literature on PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Union Catalogue of Theses and Dissertations via SABINET Online, World Cat Dissertations and Theses via OCLC, WHO library and governmental websites from 1985 to present. Following title screening, abstract and full article screening was performed by two independent reviewers guided by the eligibility criteria. Data from included studies were extracted, collated, summarized and synthesized into the following themes: assessment, removal, monitoring and definition of failure of decannulation. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version 2011. Twenty-five out of 51 screened articles were eligible for data extraction. There was wide variation in the assessment methods employed across and within similar patient groups. The common themes that emerged in the assessment for readiness for decannulation are informed consent, clinical stability, airway patency, physiological decannulation, swallowing assessment, level of consciousness, effectiveness of cough and clearance of secretions. In conclusion, the current body of evidence is inadequate and requires further research, particularly validation of different parameters used. A protocol approach to decannulation may be inappropriate but rather an algorithmic approach using validated parameters.

成人气管切开术脱管的方法和程序评估脱管准备:系统的范围审查。
尽管气管切开术有无可争辩的好处,但据报道,它与沟通障碍、生活质量下降和出血、气管狭窄等健康并发症的风险有关,在某些情况下还会导致死亡。关于气管切开术的方法和程序的文献很少,留给专家意见和机构指南来决定。本研究旨在绘制成人气管切开术脱管的方法和程序的证据,并评估脱管准备情况,以揭示知识差距并为进一步的研究提供信息。我们系统地检索了1985年至今的PubMed/MEDLINE、Google Scholar、SABINET Online的联合论文目录、OCLC、WHO图书馆和政府网站上的世界猫论文和论文的同行评议文献和灰色文献。在标题筛选之后,由两位独立的审稿人根据资格标准进行摘要和全文筛选。从纳入的研究中提取、整理、总结并综合以下主题:评估、移除、监测和定义脱管失败。纳入研究的质量采用2011版混合方法评估工具进行评估。51篇筛选文章中有25篇符合数据提取条件。在相似的患者组之间和内部采用的评估方法存在很大差异。在准备撤管评估中出现的共同主题是知情同意,临床稳定性,气道通畅,生理撤管,吞咽评估,意识水平,咳嗽有效性和分泌物清除。总之,目前的证据是不充分的,需要进一步的研究,特别是对使用的不同参数的验证。协议方法可能不合适,而是使用经过验证的参数的算法方法。
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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: ​​The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. ​ The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信