Presentation on theme: "Critical Care and Tracheostomy EBP Network 2012. PRESENTATION OUTLINE Year in review 2012 CAT topic E3BP project."— Presentation transcript:
Critical Care and Tracheostomy EBP Network 2012
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Year in review 2012 CAT topic E3BP project
YEAR IN REVIEW Change in leaders (thank you to Eva and Klint for their hard work) 50% increase in membership 6 meetings this year Critical care and tracheostomy discussion list serve remains active with just under 200 members. Included clinical case discussion to each meeting following member survey Interstate collaboration and pending SPA poster presentation in 2013 Reviewed CAPs on “in critical care patients does intubation effect laryngeal health ? ”, with aim to complete CAT early 2013
CAT TOPIC – 2012 – FEES IN CRITICAL CARE Background to CAT – there are differences between sites utilising FEES for management in critical care. Some sites are keen to introduce the use of FEES in critical care and it would be ideal to have evidence to justify service establishment. Clinical question was formed to assist in examining the documented evidence supporting the use of FEES to identify dysphagia. Is FEES an effective diagnostic tool in critical care for identifying dysphagia?
ArticleLevelParticipantsMethodDiagnostic toolOutcome measure ResultsSupport for clinical question? Hafner et al (2008) critical care pts (incl tracheostomised pts) Prospective interventional study Screening risk for dysphagia in ICU post extubation Self generated FEES protocol Detection of silent aspiration in 69.3%, 22.9% decannulated. Yes Hales et al (2008) 425 critical care tracheostomised pts Prospective observational study Clinical bedside swallow Ax FEES Ax (Rosenbeck Scale) Detecting penetration and aspiration- FEES more reliable Yes Ajemian et al (2001) 448 critical care (non-trache) pts Prospective observatonal study FEES within 48 hrs of extubation Dysphagia detected in 56% pts 25% pts silently aspirated Yes McGowan44 ventilated, tracheostomised pt’s with cuff inflated Case series pilot study FEES Ax (Rosenbeck Scale) ¼ had normal swallow, ¼ aspirated, 2/4 had laryngeal penetration Yes Noordally et al (2011) 321 critical care pts (non- tracheostomised) Prospective comparison study Attempted to compare parameters of swallow between FEES, MBS and clincial ax Clinical Ax and FEES within 24hrs of extubation Above evaluations repeated at 48hrs and 10/21 stable patients also recieved a MBS ? Each swallow component rated on scale of 1-3 and then rating compared between tools. ?Statistical correlations of ratings Methodological limitations. Disregard study Barquist et.al critical care patients Prospective comparison study with concurrent controls FEES Clinical assessment of swallowing Incidence of post extubation pneumonia between patients with clinical and FEES in patients intubated > 48 hrs Limted study with many methodological limitations. Disregard study
COMMENTS Discrepancy in data recorded in some articles Limited uniformity between the patient populations in these studies (some tracheostomised, some ventilated, post extubation etc) Speech Pathologist was not consistently part of the investigating teams Inter-rater reliability was an issue
CAT bottom line “In the critical care population, limited, low level evidence suggests that FEES may be useful in identifying dysphagia. In some studies, FEES has been shown to be more sensitive than bedside Ax in detecting silent aspiration.” Further robust research is required in order to support the use of FEES in preference to clinical bedside ax or MBS in the critical care setting
CAT bottom line : application to clinical practice Confirms what we know about FEES ie : FEES may be useful for detection of silent aspiration Useful for both tracheostomised and non tracheostomised patients Suggests that FEES can be useful for non-mobile and medically unstable patients Consistent with results of NSW Health Draft Tracheostomy Clinical Practice guideline (2012) recommendation: “Where objective assessment of swallowing is required a FEES may be considered as alternative objective assessment to a VFSS. A FEES has been demonstrated to have greater sensitivity than clinical assessment alone to detect aspiration and is particularly useful in critical care environments. FEES may allow earlier commencement of oral intake.”
2012 E3BP PROJECT E3BP review Background Collection in the clinical setting Themes from collation Future directions in the clinical setting &beyond
E3BP TRIANGLE Best external evidence Best internal evidence (from clinical practice) Best internal evidence (from clinical practice) Best internal evidence (from client factors & preferences) Best internal evidence (from client factors & preferences)
BACKGROUND TO E3BP PROJECT 2011 CAT involved review of the literature on the effect of tracheostomy on swallow function CAT bottom line - “low level evidence to suggest that a tracheostomy tube does not cause dysphagia; rather, the dysphagia is attributed to the underlying diagnoses and co morbidities” The group identified a significant gap in evidence versus clinician opinion/practice Decided to use E3BP to enable holistic decision making around trache care Group then circulated and analysed an online survey to NSW speechies to gauge level of knowledge and ideas on current practice Survey was also distributed to Vic tracheostomy interest group
E3BP collection in the clinical setting Group brainstorming session and development of preliminary data collection table → some concerns from the group regarding the sensitivity and robustness of the tool. Group members and their departments started data collection Some members of group attended Beyond Basics EBP workshop. Some discussion with Elise Baker. → its not research ! Include “the mess” and keep collecting! Refined table online during data collection. Easy to use, not time intensive, aim to make it a part of clinical assessment.
TracheTrache Insitu (Last swallow Ax pre-decannulation) Post-Decannulation (First swallow Ax post-decannulation) TimeSummary Reason for Trache insertionTrache type insitu at time of Ax Swallow Ax (A)Diet + Fluids recommendation Swallow Ax (B)Diet + Fluids recommendation □Airway patency □ Respiratory/ pulmonary toileting □ Prolonged ventilator wean □ GCS Size □ 6 □ 7 □ 8 □ 9 Other: □ Portex □ Shiley □ Other brand: □ Fenestrated □Non- fenestrated □Cuffed □Uncuffed □Cuff up □ Cuff down □Speaking Valve □ Capped Respiratory support: □ Trache mask + vent □ Trache mask only Assessment type: □ Bed-side □ FEES □ MBS □Posture: Upright; Semi-upright; supine □ Delayed onset of pharyngeal initiation □ >1 swallow per bolus □ Reduced hyolaryngeal excursion □ Other: Signs of aspiration: □ Cough □ Throat clearing □ Wet vocal quality □ Increased SOB □ Reduced oxygen saturation □ Stained secretions (food/fluid) □ NBM □ NGT/TPN □ NGT/TPN + oral intake □ Oral intake only □ Thin Fluids □ Nectar/mildly thick □ Honey/moderately thick □ Pudding/extremely thick □ Puree □ Minced □Soft □Full □ Small amounts (specify): □ Other: □ Swallowing strategies: Assessment type: □ Bed-side □ FEES □ MBS □Posture: Upright; Semi-upright; supine □ Delayed onset of pharyngeal initiation □ >1 swallow/bolus □ Reduced hyolaryngeal excursion □ Other: Signs of aspiration: □ Cough □ Throat clearing □ Wet vocal quality □ Increased SOB □ Reduced oxygen saturation □ Stained secretions (food/fluid) □ NBM □ NGT/TPN □ NGT/TPN + oral intake □ Oral intake only □ Thin Fluids □ Nectar/mildly thick □ Honey/moderately thick □ Pudding/extremely thick □ Puree □ Minced □Soft □Full □ Small amounts (specify): □ Other: □ Swallowing strategies: No. of days trache insitu : No. of days between Swallow Ax (A) and Swallow Ax (B): Has there been a change in swallow function? □ No change □ Improvement □ Decline If swallow function has improved, what may have contributed to this? □ Trache decannulation □ Improved general medical status
E3BP data trends to date N = 36 6 sites completed (other sites interested but not included at this stage) 5 tertiary sites, 1 metro site Data collected over last 6 months (May-Nov) 35 clinical Axs (only 1 MBS, no FEES) Last ax with trache insitu and first ax post decannulation Average of days between ax’s Reason for trachy insertion : 30/36 prolonged vent weans, 4/36 low GCS, 1/36 airway patency, 1/36 respiratory toilet PRELIMINARY TRENDS IN DATA – see table
Cohort = 36 Was there a change in swallow between last Ax with trache insitu and first assessment with trache removed? (Eg. Change to diet recommendations, less repeat swallows, reduced aspiration/penetration signs?) YES = 22No = medical improvement What caused the improvement? 5 trache decannulation 2 Combination Anxiety, upper airway irritation other factors?
WHERE TO FROM HERE ? Continuation of E3BP data collection to increase our body of internal evidence with future trend analysis Continued liaison with Victorian tracheostomy interest group. Joint submission of poster abstract for 2013 SPA conference re member survey Finalise the CAT on the effect of intubation on laryngeal health Hosting tracheostomy education day 2013