AJCC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Respond to This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grap, M.
Right arrow Articles by Corley, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Grap, M.
Right arrow Articles by Corley, M.
American Journal of Critical Care, Vol 8, Issue 1, 475-480
Copyright © 1999 by American Association of Critical Care Nurses

Articles

Use of backrest elevation in critical care: a pilot study

MJ Grap, M Cantley, CL Munro, and MC Corley .

BACKGROUND: Use of lower backrest positions occurs frequently and is a factor in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the usual bed elevation and backrest position in a medical intensive care unit and their relationship to hemodynamic status and enteral feeding. METHODS: Data were collected in a 12-bed medical respiratory intensive care unit for 2 months. A protractor was used to measure the elevation of the head of the bed. Hemodynamic status was defined by systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure measurements retrieved from each patient's flow sheet. RESULTS: The sample included 347 measurements of 52 patients. Mean backrest elevation was 22.9 degrees, and 86% of patients were supine. Backrest position differed significantly (P = .005) among nursing shifts (days, evenings, nights) but not for systolic (r = -0.04, P = .49), diastolic (r = 0.01, P = .83), or mean arterial blood pressure (r = -0.01, P = .84). Backrest elevation did not differ significantly between patients who were receiving enteral feedings and patients who were not (P = .23) or between patients receiving intermittent versus continuous nutrition (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: Use of higher levels of backrest elevation (> or = 30 degrees) is minimal and is not related to use of enteral feeding or to hemodynamic status. The rationale for using lower backrest positions for critically ill patients may be based on convenience, the patient's comfort, or usual patterns in the unit. However, the dangers of supine positioning and its relationship to aspiration and ventilator-associated pneumonia should not be minimized.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crit Care NurseHome page
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Crit. Care Nurse, June 1, 2008; 28(3): 83 - 85.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
N. A. Metheny
Preventing respiratory complications of tube feedings: evidence-based practice.
Am. J. Crit. Care., July 1, 2006; 15(4): 360 - 369.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
M. J. Grap, C. L. Munro, R. S. Hummel III, R.K. Elswick Jr, J. L. McKinney, and C. N. Sessler
Effect of Backrest Elevation on the Development of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Am. J. Crit. Care., July 1, 2005; 14(4): 325 - 332.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
M. J. Grap, C. L. Munro, B. Ashtiani, and S. Bryant
Oral Care Interventions in Critical Care: Frequency and Documentation
Am. J. Crit. Care., March 1, 2003; 12(2): 113 - 118.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
A. Dillon, C. L. Munro, and M. J. Grap
Nurses' Accuracy in Estimating Backrest Elevation
Am. J. Crit. Care., January 1, 2002; 11(1): 34 - 37.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.