“…In our study, it was proven that VAP development speed was 43% lower with the controlled group and ventilator bundle adaptation control reduces VAP development by 75%. Reading the related literature, it can be seen that there are a lot of studies that supports our study, and these studies show that with proper application of ventilator bundles [4,12,14,15,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] and higher adaptation of the staff to them [14,15,18,20,23,24,26,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] VAP rate and speed decreases. However, diversely from our study, ventilator application bundles of different approaches and various numbers of them were utilized in those studies [4,12,14,15,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…In order to gather data, (1) Introductory Features Form, (2) VAP Prevention Bundle Application List which was designed in accordance with the current literature [4,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]24]and (3) VAP Prevention Bundle Control List were utilized.…”
Section: Data Collection Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the literature, there are numerous international [4,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and national [18][19][20] studies which were carried out in order to find out the efficiency of application of ventilator bundle on VAP development speed. In these studies, it was proven that it is possible to decrease the VAP development speed significantly and it is even possible to fully prevent VAP development via application of ventilator bundle.…”
Introduction: This study was conducted in order to evaluate the adaptation control onVAP prevention bundle adaptationcontrol in terms of VAP speed, length of stay at hospital and adaptation of healthcare staff to bundle application.
Method:The data of the study, which was conducted in cross sectional pattern on controlled and uncontrolled groups for ten months each, was gathered via Introductory Features Form, VAP Prevention Bundle Application List and VAP Prevention Bundle Control List. Gathered data was presented in numbers, percentages, averages and standard deviations. The data was analyzed via chi square test, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests.Results: It was found out that the length of stay at hospital for controlled group (X=11.41±12.29) is fairly shorter than of uncontrolled group (X=31.41±36.41); and it was also found out that, in comparison with the controlled group (4.7%) the VAP development rate is higher with the uncontrolled group (19.6%) and the difference in percentages is statistically meaningful. With the uncontrolled group the VAP speed is measured as 7.12 ventilator days while the time is 4.14 with the controlled group; and difference in time spent on mechanical ventilator is found to be statistically highly meaningful. In this study, it was found out that the adaptation rate of doctors and nurses working at ICUs to ventilator bundle are 69.89%.
Conclusion:In accordance with the gathered data, it was determined that, controlled and uncontrolled groups have similar characteristics in terms of introductory features; although the adaptation rate with controlled group is lower than the average numbers in literature, while the VAP rate and speed is higher with the uncontrolled group, these numbers decrease to statistically meaningful levels with the controlled group. In our study it was observed that, in comparison with the uncontrolled group, the length of time spent at hospital and on mechanical ventilator is statistically shorter with the controlled group.
“…In our study, it was proven that VAP development speed was 43% lower with the controlled group and ventilator bundle adaptation control reduces VAP development by 75%. Reading the related literature, it can be seen that there are a lot of studies that supports our study, and these studies show that with proper application of ventilator bundles [4,12,14,15,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] and higher adaptation of the staff to them [14,15,18,20,23,24,26,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] VAP rate and speed decreases. However, diversely from our study, ventilator application bundles of different approaches and various numbers of them were utilized in those studies [4,12,14,15,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…In order to gather data, (1) Introductory Features Form, (2) VAP Prevention Bundle Application List which was designed in accordance with the current literature [4,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]24]and (3) VAP Prevention Bundle Control List were utilized.…”
Section: Data Collection Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the literature, there are numerous international [4,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and national [18][19][20] studies which were carried out in order to find out the efficiency of application of ventilator bundle on VAP development speed. In these studies, it was proven that it is possible to decrease the VAP development speed significantly and it is even possible to fully prevent VAP development via application of ventilator bundle.…”
Introduction: This study was conducted in order to evaluate the adaptation control onVAP prevention bundle adaptationcontrol in terms of VAP speed, length of stay at hospital and adaptation of healthcare staff to bundle application.
Method:The data of the study, which was conducted in cross sectional pattern on controlled and uncontrolled groups for ten months each, was gathered via Introductory Features Form, VAP Prevention Bundle Application List and VAP Prevention Bundle Control List. Gathered data was presented in numbers, percentages, averages and standard deviations. The data was analyzed via chi square test, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests.Results: It was found out that the length of stay at hospital for controlled group (X=11.41±12.29) is fairly shorter than of uncontrolled group (X=31.41±36.41); and it was also found out that, in comparison with the controlled group (4.7%) the VAP development rate is higher with the uncontrolled group (19.6%) and the difference in percentages is statistically meaningful. With the uncontrolled group the VAP speed is measured as 7.12 ventilator days while the time is 4.14 with the controlled group; and difference in time spent on mechanical ventilator is found to be statistically highly meaningful. In this study, it was found out that the adaptation rate of doctors and nurses working at ICUs to ventilator bundle are 69.89%.
Conclusion:In accordance with the gathered data, it was determined that, controlled and uncontrolled groups have similar characteristics in terms of introductory features; although the adaptation rate with controlled group is lower than the average numbers in literature, while the VAP rate and speed is higher with the uncontrolled group, these numbers decrease to statistically meaningful levels with the controlled group. In our study it was observed that, in comparison with the uncontrolled group, the length of time spent at hospital and on mechanical ventilator is statistically shorter with the controlled group.
“…121,141 Data from 22 studies with aggregated data for VAP are shown in Supplementary Table S5 12 13 , 27 , 28 ,35 ,41,48,49,52,53,59,64,75,120,127,128,131,136,139,140,144,152 Changes in VAP rates or proportions in these reports ranged between 100% reduction and a 17% increase (statistical significance not reported).Fig. 5Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) from random-effects models for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in uncontrolled before-and-after studies stratified by country economic income status.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…121,141 Data from 22 studies with aggregated data for VAP are shown in Supplementary Table S5. 12,13,27,28,35,41,48,49,52,53,59,64,75,120,127,128,131,136,139,140,144,152 Changes in VAP rates or proportions in these reports ranged between 100% reduction and a 17% increase (statistical significance not reported).…”
ObjectiveThe preventable proportion of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) may decrease over time as standards of care improve. We aimed to assess the proportion of HAIs prevented by multifaceted infection control interventions in different economic settings.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched OVID Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library for studies published between 2005 and 2016 assessing multifaceted interventions to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), surgical site infections (SSIs), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and hospital-acquired pneumonia not associated with mechanical ventilation (HAP) in acute-care or long-term care settings. For studies reporting raw rates, we extracted data and calculated the natural log of the risk ratio and variance to obtain pooled risk ratio estimates.ResultsOf the 5,226 articles identified by our search, 144 studies were included in the final analysis. Pooled incidence rate ratios associated with multifaceted interventions were 0.543 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.445–0.662) for CAUTI, 0.459 (95% CI, 0.381–0.554) for CLABSI, and 0.553 (95% CI, 0.465–0.657) for VAP. The pooled rate ratio was 0.461 (95% CI, 0.389–0.546) for interventions aiming at SSI reduction, and for VAP reduction initiatives, the pooled rate ratios were 0.611 (95% CI, 0.414–0.900) for before-and-after studies and 0.509 (95% CI, 0.277–0.937) for randomized controlled trials. Reductions in infection rates were independent of the economic status of the study country. The risk of bias was high in 143 of 144 studies (99.3%).ConclusionsPublished evidence suggests a sustained potential for the significant reduction of HAI rates in the range of 35%–55% associated with multifaceted interventions irrespective of a country’s income level.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
