A Retrospective Study of Tracheostomy Care and Decannulation of the Patients in a Palliative Care Center.

Hilal Zengin, Zehra Can Karahan
{"title":"A Retrospective Study of Tracheostomy Care and Decannulation of the Patients in a Palliative Care Center.","authors":"Hilal Zengin, Zehra Can Karahan","doi":"10.1177/01455613241293672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> World Health Organization defines palliative care as a multidisciplinary approach to enhancing patients physical, psychological, and emotional well-being. Our study investigated palliative care unit decannulation rates and factors affecting success. <b>Methods:</b> The data of patients hospitalized in the palliative care clinic between 2017 and 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic data, diagnoses, comorbidities, nutritional status, Norton and Braden Scale scores, day of hospitalization, and discharge direction of the patients were recorded. All patients were evaluated and treated by a multidisciplinary team. <b>Results:</b> One hundred two tracheostomy patients were monitored. Patients in the palliative care clinic had an average stay of 22.19 ± 13.67 days (median: 21, min: 4, max: 66). Forty-one patients were decannulated. Statistically significant age difference was observed between decannulated and non-cannulated groups, with the decannulated group having a significantly lower mean age (52.10 ± 20.54, median: 53) compared to the non-decannulated group (61.48 ± 18.07) (<i>z</i> = -2.516, <i>P</i> = .012). The mean Braden scale score of the decannulated group (14.29 ± 2.50) was significantly higher than that of the non-decannulated group (12.20 ± 2.82) (<i>z</i> = 3.823, <i>P</i> < .001), and the mean Norton scale score of the decannulated group (11.34 ± 2.50) was significantly higher than that of the non-decannulated group (9.46 ± 2.46) (<i>z</i> = 3.472, <i>P</i> = .001). <b>Conclusion:</b> Patients with tracheostomy can be easily followed and decannulated in palliative care clinics. It is important that a multidisciplinary team is involved in palliative care units. Age, immobility, Norton and Braden scales, and level of consciousness are factors affecting the success of decannulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93984,"journal":{"name":"Ear, nose, & throat journal","volume":" ","pages":"1455613241293672"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ear, nose, & throat journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613241293672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: World Health Organization defines palliative care as a multidisciplinary approach to enhancing patients physical, psychological, and emotional well-being. Our study investigated palliative care unit decannulation rates and factors affecting success. Methods: The data of patients hospitalized in the palliative care clinic between 2017 and 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic data, diagnoses, comorbidities, nutritional status, Norton and Braden Scale scores, day of hospitalization, and discharge direction of the patients were recorded. All patients were evaluated and treated by a multidisciplinary team. Results: One hundred two tracheostomy patients were monitored. Patients in the palliative care clinic had an average stay of 22.19 ± 13.67 days (median: 21, min: 4, max: 66). Forty-one patients were decannulated. Statistically significant age difference was observed between decannulated and non-cannulated groups, with the decannulated group having a significantly lower mean age (52.10 ± 20.54, median: 53) compared to the non-decannulated group (61.48 ± 18.07) (z = -2.516, P = .012). The mean Braden scale score of the decannulated group (14.29 ± 2.50) was significantly higher than that of the non-decannulated group (12.20 ± 2.82) (z = 3.823, P < .001), and the mean Norton scale score of the decannulated group (11.34 ± 2.50) was significantly higher than that of the non-decannulated group (9.46 ± 2.46) (z = 3.472, P = .001). Conclusion: Patients with tracheostomy can be easily followed and decannulated in palliative care clinics. It is important that a multidisciplinary team is involved in palliative care units. Age, immobility, Norton and Braden scales, and level of consciousness are factors affecting the success of decannulation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项关于姑息治疗中心气管造口护理和患者拔管的回顾性研究。
背景:世界卫生组织将姑息治疗定义为一种多学科方法,旨在提高患者的身体、心理和情感健康。我们的研究调查了姑息治疗病房的拔管率和影响成功的因素。研究方法回顾性分析了 2017 年至 2019 年期间姑息治疗门诊住院患者的数据。记录了患者的人口统计学数据、诊断、合并症、营养状况、诺顿和布莱登量表评分、住院日和出院方向。所有患者均由多学科团队进行评估和治疗。结果对 122 名气管切开术患者进行了监测。姑息治疗门诊的患者平均住院时间为(22.19±13.67)天(中位数:21,最少:4,最多:66)。有 41 名患者接受了气管切开术。据统计,已解除禁闭组和未解除禁闭组之间存在明显的年龄差异,已解除禁闭组的平均年龄(52.10 ± 20.54,中位数:53)明显低于未解除禁闭组(61.48 ± 18.07)(z = -2.516,P = .012)。去势组的平均布莱登量表评分(14.29 ± 2.50)明显高于未去势组(12.20 ± 2.82)(z = 3.823,P < .001),去势组的平均诺顿量表评分(11.34 ± 2.50)明显高于未去势组(9.46 ± 2.46)(z = 3.472,P = .001)。结论在姑息治疗门诊中,气管切开术患者很容易得到随访和解除。在姑息治疗病房中,多学科团队的参与非常重要。年龄、行动不便、诺顿(Norton)和布莱登(Braden)量表以及意识水平都是影响拔管成功与否的因素。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Resection of the Hemangioma Derived From Pterygopalatine Fossa via Anterior Nasolacrimal Recess: A Case Report and Literature Review. Investigating the Role of C-Reactive Protein/Albumin Ratio in the Preliminary Diagnosis of Patients With Unexplained Neck Lymphadenopathy. Which Canal BPPV Should be Checked for Residual Disease after 1 Week? Assessment of In-Office Tympanostomy Tube Insertion Tolerability in Children Under 2 Years. Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia with Orbital and Sinonasal Manifestations.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1