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


     

American Journal of Critical Care. 2002;11: 363-368
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Sole, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ostrow, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sole, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ostrow, C. L.

Suctioning Techniques and Airway Management Practices: Pilot Study and Instrument Evaluation

By Mary Lou Sole, RN, PhD, CCRN, Jacqueline F. Byers, RN, PhD, CNAA, Jeffery E. Ludy, EdD, RRT and C. Lynne Ostrow, RN, EdD. From the School of Nursing (MLS, JFB) and Cardiopulmonary Sciences (JEL), University of Central Florida, Orlando, Fla, and School of Nursing, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WVa (CLO).

This pilot study was done to gather preliminary data and refine instruments and procedures for a large multisite study of Suctioning Techniques and Airway Management Practices (STAMP). The purposes of the STAMP study are to compare institutional policies and procedures related to closed suctioning and airway management, and to describe and compare practices of registered nurses and respiratory therapists concerning closed-system suctioning and airway management of intubated patients.


   Background and Significance
Top
 Background and Significance
Methods
 Findings
 Discussion
 Instrument Evaluation
 Conclusion
 References
 
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common infection in critical care units. Numerous risk factors for this infection have been identified. It commonly occurs as a result of aspiration of bacteria that colonize the oropharynx.1 Dental plaque, invasive devices, and respiratory care equipment can lead to oropharyngeal colonization, microaspiration of secretions, and VAP.1–3 Duration of intubation and mechanical ventilation are risks for VAP.4,5 Thus, suctioning and airway management practices have a potential effect on this type of pneumonia.6

A recent survey7 showed that 80% of respondents in the mid-Atlantic area most often use closed-system suctioning devices for suctioning patients’ airways. The devices are designed to prevent suction-induced hypoxemia, especially in patients who require high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure to maintain oxygenation. Institutions that use closed-system suctioning report no change, or a decrease, in VAP when the devices are used.8–14 However, practices have changed with the advent of these devices. The devices are designed to suction only the lower part of the airway. Oral suctioning is no longer an integral part of the endotracheal suctioning procedure, and some equipment is used for both closed-system and oral suctioning. The changes in practice may result in less use of oral suctioning and in cross-contamination of equipment.

Because microaspiration of secretions is a risk factor for VAP, assessment of practices related to oral suctioning, oral care, and management of endotracheal tubes is important. Published guidelines provide little information related to use of closed-system suctioning and airway management, and the guidelines may not reflect current practices.1,15 Knowledge of practice may assist in determining interventions to improve patients’ outcomes. Comparing practices of nurses and respiratory therapists may also help ascertain differences in practices and aid in establishing collaborative policies and procedures.


   Methods
Top
 Background and Significance
 Methods
Findings
 Discussion
 Instrument Evaluation
 Conclusion
 References
 
A descriptive, comparative survey design was used for the pilot study. Ethical approval was obtained from the universities and at each site. All data were coded to maintain confidentiality.

Four sites in the southeastern United States were recruited to participate by convenience sampling. The settings were adult critical care units at the sites that used closed-system suctioning devices on more than 50% of the patients who required mechanical ventilation. Coordinators at each site facilitated study approval, completed the institutional survey, and distributed and collected surveys to critical care nurses and respiratory therapists who regularly used closed-system suctioning devices to suction the airways of adult patients.

The following two instruments were used to collect data: (1) STAMP: Institutional Policies and Data, and (2) STAMP: Individual Survey. Before administration of the instruments, content validity for both instruments was established by a panel of 3 persons with nursing, respiratory care, and/or survey method expertise. The first tool consisted of 45 questions related to suctioning and airway management practices, products for suctioning and oral care, and VAP data. The individual survey consisted of 42 items: 9 demographic questions and 33 questions related to practices.


   Findings
Top
 Background and Significance
 Methods
 Findings
Discussion
 Instrument Evaluation
 Conclusion
 References
 
The 4 institutions ranged in size from 100 to 900 beds. The individual survey was completed by 132 staff members: 95 nurses (72%) and 37 respiratory therapists (28%). One third of the surveys distributed were completed. Most respondents were women (75%), had 6 or more years of experience in the care of intubated patients (62%), and had a baccalaureate degree or higher (55%). Except for highest degree, demographic data of respondents were similar to characteristics of all staff employed in the critical care units. We think that more persons with baccalaureate degrees or higher completed the survey.

Institutional Policies
Table 1Go gives policies and procedures related to suctioning and airway management. All sites designated nurses to manage oral care; respiratory therapists were responsible for managing endotracheal tubes and the closed-system suctioning devices. Of the 4 sites, 3 designated both nurses and respiratory therapists as responsible for endotracheal suctioning, oral/nasal suctioning, and management of the suctioning equipment. Oral suctioning was performed with a tonsil-type (Yankauer) device. A common suction tubing and canister were used for both closed-system suctioning and oral suctioning. No standards existed for replacing the oral suctioning device and suctioning equipment.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Suctioning and airway management procedures included in institutional policies

 
Individual Practices
Staff members were asked how often they performed activities related to closed-system suctioning and airway management. Table 2Go summarizes the percentages of nurses and respiratory therapists who stated that they perform such activities 60% or more of the time. Chi-square analysis indicated significant differences (P≤.05) between nurses and respiratory therapists for several items. Respiratory therapists use hyperoxygenation, instill isotonic sodium chloride solution, and rinse the closed-system suctioning device more often than nurses do; nurses suction the mouth more often after closed-system suctioning than respiratory therapists do.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Practices reported 60% or more of the time by nurses and respiratory therapists

 
A comparison of responses from nurses and respiratory therapists on other airway management practices is reported in Table 3Go. Nurses routinely suction oral secretions (every 4–12 hours), brush patients’ teeth, and use oral swabs for mouth care more often than do respiratory therapists (P≤.05). However, brushing of patients’ teeth was reported by only 58% of nurses and 16% of respiratory therapists. The majority of staff stated that they rinse the tonsil suctioning device with tap water (71%), and store it in its original package that is taped to the wall, shelf, or ventilator (60%). The tonsil suctioning devices are replaced every 24 hours (44%) or as needed (39%). Respiratory therapists manage endotracheal tube cuffs at all sites; most (78%) reported that they measure cuff pressures every 8 hours. Endotracheal tubes are repositioned as needed (51%). Suctioning above the cuff or the endotracheal tube before the tube is repositioned is done about half of the time. Only 54% of nurses were knowledgeable of management of the cuffs of endotracheal tubes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Comparison of selected airway management practices followed by nurses and respiratory therapists

 

   Discussion
Top
 Background and Significance
 Methods
 Findings
 Discussion
Instrument Evaluation
 Conclusion
 References
 
Many suctioning and airway management procedures were not included in written policies at the 4 institutions. In a recent study,7 many nurses stated that their institutions did not have policies for closed-system suctioning. Staff reported a variety of practices and did not always follow institutional recommendations.

Closed-System Suctioning
Nearly 80% of staff (Table 3Go) stated that closed-system suctioning was the same as or better than traditional open suctioning. This finding is higher than reported in the literature. Blackwood16 and Blackwood and Webb17 reported that removal of secretions was ineffective 45% of the time when closed-system suctioning was used and attributed the finding to thick secretions. These 2 studies16,17 were done in Ireland, and the wording of the questions differed from the wording of our questions.

The 4 institutions did not address hyperoxygenation and hyperinflation techniques in their policies on closed-system suctioning. Research studies12,18–20 indicate that closed-system suctioning prevents suction-induced hypoxemia; however, some patients still require hyperoxygenation before and during suctioning. About half of the respondents stated that they hyperoxygenate the patient via the ventilator before suctioning the majority of the time. This finding is similar to that reported by Paul-Allen and Ostrow (41%).7 Less than 20% of staff reported using hyper-ventilation; it is not known if this step is needed with closed-system suctioning. Paul-Allen and Ostrow reported that 35% of nurses used hyperinflation with closed-system suctioning and that the techniques for hyperinflation varied and could lead to adverse effects such as barotrauma.7

A total of 5% to 10% of staff stated that they disconnect the closed-system suctioning device and use traditional open suctioning the majority of time that patients need suctioning. This percentage is much lower than the 61% reported in a previous study.7 However, this practice is not advocated because it disrupts the closed system, which potentially increases the risk for infection.

Instillation of Isotonic Sodium Chloride Solution
Most institutions reported that instillation of isotonic sodium chloride solution is included in their policies as a treatment for thick secretions. Many staff (more respiratory therapists than nurses) reported that they instill isotonic sodium chloride solution the majority of time that they suction patients’ airways. Recent studies indicated that adverse effects are associated with instillation of isotonic sodium chloride solution, and the nursing literature strongly advocates that instillation of isotonic sodium chloride solution be avoided, citing no benefits to its use.21–26 Despite these published reports, staff continue to instill isotonic sodium chloride solution. Other researchers have reported similar findings.16,27,28

Oral Care
Institutions did not include oral care management in their policies and procedures. Oral care is often considered basic nursing care and may be taken for granted. More nurses than respiratory therapists perform oral care, an expected f inding because oral hygiene is taught as an important component of basic nursing care. Most staff reported using swabs for mouth care rather than brushing patients’ teeth. Brushing patients’ teeth is important because oral hygiene may play a role in oral colonization.29 The protocols for practice for airway management of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses recommend providing oral care "several times a day" by swabbing, brushing teeth, and suctioning oral secretions.30 The purpose is to prevent plaque and periodontal disease. Munro and Grap31 found that plaque increased over a 7-day period after intubation and proposed a link between plaque formation and VAP. A recent study32 indicated that VAP can be reduced by oral decontamination with topical prophylaxis.

Oral Suctioning and Management of Endotracheal Tube Cuffs
Because microaspiration of secretions is an etiological factor for VAP, oral suctioning and practices for management of the cuffs of endotracheal tubes are important. Only a few publications33,34 recommend that oral suctioning be done after endotracheal suctioning with closed-system suctioning devices. Oral suctioning is considered "ongoing monitoring" rather than an integral part of suctioning procedures.30 Texts on respiratory therapy do not address oral suctioning in conjunction with closed-system suctioning.35,36 If staff do not suction patients’ mouths routinely, secretions accumulate and microaspiration may be more likely to occur.

In a recent study, Rello et al37 noted a decrease in VAP when the pressure in the cuff of the endotracheal tube was maintained at more than 20 cm H2O. Only 32% of respiratory therapists stated that they keep the pressure at this level. Most staff reported using the minimal leak technique for cuff inflation. Institutional policies stated that cuff pressure should be measured every 4 hours; however, most respiratory therapists stated that they measure the pressure every 8 hours. Crimlisk et al38 reported a similar frequency of measuring cuff pressures. More frequent monitoring may assist in detecting leaks in the cuffs. Only half of the respondents suction above the endotracheal tube cuff before they reposition the tube, a practice that may contribute to microaspiration.1 The majority of nurses were unaware of management practices for endotracheal tube cuffs.

Equipment
Suctioning equipment is not addressed in institutional policies (eg, changing of Yankauer devices and suction tubing). Most staff reported changing these devices "as needed." A recent study39 indicated that these devices harbor potentially pathogenic bacteria within 24 hours of use. Hospital policies recommended rinsing tonsil-type suction devices with sterile isotonic sodium chloride solution, a practice supported by recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1 However, the majority of staff members stated that they rinse the devices with tap water. Tap water has been associated with outbreaks of bacteria; therefore, its use may warrant further investigation.

Limitations
Our findings represent the practices of only about one third of the nurses and respiratory therapists who work at 4 institutions in the southeastern United States. We do not know if these practices are consistent with those of staff at other sites. The next phase of the study will be to replicate the study with a larger sample of sites and staff members to determine if these findings occur in other sites throughout the United States.


   Instrument Evaluation
Top
 Background and Significance
 Methods
 Findings
 Discussion
 Instrument Evaluation
Conclusion
 References
 
We reviewed the STAMP: Institutional Policies and Data tool and obtained feedback about it from the site coordinators. The content experts reviewed the preliminary findings, made suggestions for minor changes to the tool, and reaffirmed content validity. Readability of the tool is 11th grade level.

The STAMP: Individual Survey instrument was evaluated for test-retest reliability. The instrument was given to 10 staff volunteers (whose identities were coded) during the designated data collection period and then 2 to 3 weeks later. Test-retest reliability was .82. It was not appropriate to compute a Cronbach {alpha} because of the diverse questions and response options. Upon completion of the pilot study, we reviewed the findings and computed a content validity index. We asked the content experts to rate the relevance of items to the study purposes by using a 4-point scale (1 = not relevant; 4 = very relevant).40 We kept all items that were rated 3 or 4 and modified a few of the answer options, resulting in a 32-item survey with a 10th grade level readability.


   Conclusion
Top
 Background and Significance
 Methods
 Findings
 Discussion
 Instrument Evaluation
 Conclusion
References
 
Preliminary findings indicate variation in practice patterns. Consistent performance of practices such as suctioning patients’ mouths, oral care practices, and maintaining the pressure in the cuff of the endotracheal tube at a set level need to be evaluated for effectiveness in reducing VAP. Nurses and respiratory therapists need to collaborate on practices to ensure consistency across disciplines.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Suzanne Burns, RN, MSN, ACNP, RRT, and Patricia Carroll, RN, MS, RRT, for their assistance with this project. This study was funded in part by a grant from the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.

To purchase reprints, contact The InnoVision Group, 101 Columbia, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. Phone, (800) 809-2273 or (949) 362-2050 (ext 532); fax, (949) 362-2049; e-mail, reprints{at}aacn.org.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Background and Significance
 Methods
 Findings
 Discussion
 Instrument Evaluation
 Conclusion
 References
 

  1. Guidelines for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1997;46(RR-1);1–79.[Medline]
  2. Craven DE, Steger KA. Ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonias: challenges in diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. New Horiz. 1998;6:S30–S45.[Medline]
  3. Harris JR, Joshi M, Morton PG, Soeken KL. Risk factors for nosocomial pneumonia in critically ill trauma patients. AACN Clin Issues. 2000;11:198–231.[Medline]
  4. Beck-Sague CM, Sinkowitz RL, Chinn RY, Vargo J, Kaler W, Jarvis WR. Risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in surgical intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:374–376.[Medline]
  5. Byers JF, Sole ML. Analysis of factors related to the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia: use of existing databases. Am J Crit Care. 2000;9:344–349.[Abstract]
  6. Hixson S, Sole ML, King T. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. AACN Clin Issues. 1998;9:76–90.[Medline]
  7. Paul-Allen J, Ostrow CL. Survey of nursing practices with closed-system suctioning. Am J Crit Care. 2000;9:9–19.[Abstract]
  8. Baker T, Taylor M, Wilson M, Rish J, Brazeal S. Evaluation of a closed-system endotracheal suction catheter [abstract]. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17:97.
  9. Conrad SA, George RB, Romero MD, Owens MW. Comparison of nosocomial pneumonia rates in closed and open tracheal suction systems [abstract]. Chest. 1989;96:184S.
  10. Deppe SA, Kelly JW, Thoi LL, et al. Incidence of colonization, nosocomial pneumonia, and mortality in critically ill patients using a Trach Care closed-suction system versus an open-suction system: prospective, randomized study. Crit Care Med. 1990;18:1389–1393.[Medline]
  11. Adams DH, Hughes M, Elliott TS. Microbial colonization of closed-system suction catheters used in liver transplant patients. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 1997;13:72–76.[Medline]
  12. Johnson KL, Kearney PA, Johnson SB, Niblett JB, MacMillan NL, McClain RE. Closed versus open endotracheal suctioning: costs and physiologic consequences. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:658–666.[Medline]
  13. Kollef MH, Prentice D, Shapiro SD, et al. Mechanical ventilation with or without daily changes of in-line suction catheters. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156:466–472.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Combes P, Fauvage B, Oleyer C. Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective randomized evaluation of the Stericath closed suctioning system. Intensive Care Med. 2000;26:878–882.[Medline]
  15. AARC practice guideline: endotracheal suctioning of mechanically ventilated adults and children with artificial airways. American Association of Respiratory Care. Respir Care. 1993;38:500–504.[Medline]
  16. Blackwood B. The practice and perception of intensive care staff using the closed suctioning system. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:1020–1029.[Medline]
  17. Blackwood B, Webb CH. Closed tracheal suctioning systems and infection control in the intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 1998;39:315–321.[Medline]
  18. Craig K, Benson M, Pierson D. Prevention of arterial oxygen desaturation during closed-airway endotracheal suction: effect of ventilator mode. Respir Care. 1984;29:1013–1018.
  19. Harshbarger S, Hoffman L, Zullo T, Pinsky M. Effects of a closed tracheal suction system on ventilatory and cardiovascular parameters. Am J Crit Care. 1992;1:57–61.[Abstract]
  20. Crimlisk JT, Paris R, McGonagle EG, Calcutt JA, Farber HW. The closed tracheal suction system: implications for critical care nursing. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 1994;13:292–300.[Medline]
  21. Hagler DA, Traver GA. Endotracheal saline and suction catheters: sources of lower airway contamination. Am J Crit Care. 1994;3:444–447.[Abstract]
  22. Ackerman MH, Mick DJ. Instillation of normal saline before suctioning in patients with pulmonary infections: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Am J Crit Care. 1998;7:261–266.[Abstract]
  23. Kinloch D. Instillation of normal saline during endotracheal suctioning: effects on mixed venous oxygen saturation. Am J Crit Care. 1999;8:231–240.[Abstract]
  24. Ackerman MH. The effect of saline lavage prior to suctioning. Am J Crit Care. 1993;2:326–330.[Abstract]
  25. Ackerman MH, Ecklund MM, Abu-Jumah M. A review of normal saline instillation: implications for practice. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 1996;15:31–38.[Medline]
  26. Raymond SJ. Normal saline instillation before suctioning: helpful or harmful? A review of the literature. Am J Crit Care. 1995;4:267–271.[Abstract]
  27. Schwenker D, Ferrin M, Gift AG. A survey of endotracheal suctioning with instillation of normal saline. Am J Crit Care. 1998;7:255–260.[Abstract]
  28. Swartz K, Noonan DM, Edwards-Beckett J. A national survey of endotracheal suctioning techniques in the pediatric population. Heart Lung. 1996;25:52–60.[Medline]
  29. Fitch JA, Munro CL, Glass CA, Pellegrini JM. Oral care in the adult intensive care unit. Am J Crit Care. 1999;8:314–318.[Abstract]
  30. Henneman E, Ellstrom K, St John RE. Airway Management: Care of the Mechanically Ventilated Patient. Aliso Viejo, Calif: American Association of Critical-Care Nurses; 1998.
  31. Munro CL, Grap MJ. Oral health status: effect on VAP [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th Anniversary Conference of the Southern Nursing Research Society. Baltimore, Md: Southern Nursing Research Society; 2001.
  32. Bergmans DC, Bonten MJ, Gaillard CA, et al. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia by oral decontamination: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;164:382–388.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Redick EL. Closed-system, in-line endotracheal suctioning. Crit Care Nurse. August 1993;13:47–51.[Medline]
  34. Sole ML, Byers JF. Ventilatory assistance. In: Sole ML, Lamborn ML, Hartshorn J, eds. Introduction to Critical Care Nursing. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co: 2001:117–164.
  35. Pilbeam SP. Mechanical Ventilation: Physiological and Clinical Applications. 3rd ed. St Louis, Mo: CV Mosby; 1998.
  36. Fink JB, Hunt GE. Clinical Practice in Respiratory Care. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott; 1999.
  37. Rello J, Sonora R, Jubert P, Artigas A, Rue M, Valles J. Pneumonia in intubated patients: role of respiratory airway care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996:154:111–115.[Abstract]
  38. Crimlisk JT, Horn MH, Wilson DJ, Marino B. Artificial airways: a survey of cuff management practices. Heart Lung. 1996;25:225–235.[Medline]
  39. Sole ML, Poalillo E, Byers JF, Ludy JE. Bacterial growth in secretions and on suctioning equipment of orally intubated patients: a pilot study. Am J Crit Care. 2002;11:141–149.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Polit DF, Hungler BP. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 6th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott; 1999.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
L. Rose and L. Redl
Survey of Cuff Management Practices in Intensive Care Units in Australia and New Zealand
Am. J. Crit. Care., September 1, 2008; 17(5): 428 - 435.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
M. A. Halm and K. Krisko-Hagel
Instilling Normal Saline With Suctioning: Beneficial Technique or Potentially Harmful Sacred Cow?
Am. J. Crit. Care., September 1, 2008; 17(5): 469 - 472.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crit Care NurseHome page
C. A. Rauen, M. Chulay, E. Bridges, K. M. Vollman, and R. Arbour
Seven Evidence-Based Practice Habits: Putting Some Sacred Cows Out to Pasture
Crit. Care Nurse, April 1, 2008; 28(2): 98 - 123.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
M. L. Sole, J. F. Byers, J. E. Ludy, Y. Zhang, C. M. Banta, and K. Brummel
A Multisite Survey of Suctioning Techniques and Airway Management Practices
Am. J. Crit. Care., May 1, 2003; 12(3): 220 - 230.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Sole, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ostrow, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sole, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ostrow, C. L.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS