Tracheostomy clinical practices and patient outcomes in three tertiary metropolitan hospitals in Australia.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature in Australia on patient-focused tracheostomy outcomes and process outcomes. Exploration of processes of care enables teams to identify and address existing barriers that may prevent earlier therapeutic interventions that could improve patient outcomes following critical care survival. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to examine and provide baseline data and associations between tracheostomy clinical practices and patient outcomes across three large metropolitan hospitals. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multisite observational study in three tertiary metropolitan Australian health services who are members of the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative. Deidentified data were entered into the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative database from Jan 2016 to Dec 2019. Descriptive statistics were used for the reported outcomes of length of stay, mortality, tracheostomy-related adverse events and complications, tracheostomy insertion, airway, mechanical ventilation, communication, swallowing, nutrition, length of cannulation, and decannulation. Pearson's correlation coefficient and one-way analyses of variance were performed to examine associations between variables. RESULTS: The total cohort was 380 patients. The in-hospital mortality of the study cohort was 13%. Overall median hospital length of stay was 46 days (interquartile range: 31-74). Length of cannulation was shorter in patients who did not experience any tracheostomy-related adverse events (p= 0.036) and who utilised nonverbal communication methods (p = 0.041). Few patients (8%) utilised verbal communication methods while mechanically ventilated, compared with 80% who utilised a one-way speaking valve while off the ventilator. Oral intake was commenced in 20% of patients prior to decannulation. Patient nutritional intake varied prior to and at the time of decannulation. Decannulation occurred in 83% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides baseline data for tracheostomy outcomes across three large metropolitan Australian hospitals. Most outcomes were comparable with previous international and local studies. Future research is warranted to explore the impact of earlier nonverbal communication and interventions targeting the reduction in tracheostomy-related adverse events.

Factors associated with short versus prolonged tracheostomy length of cannulation and the relationship between length of cannulation and adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy management and care is multifaceted and costly, commonly involving complex patients with prolonged hospitalisation. Currently, there are no agreed definitions of short and prolonged length of tracheostomy cannulation (LOC) and no consensus regarding the key factors that may be associated with time to decannulation. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to identify the factors associated with short and prolonged LOC and to examine the number of tracheostomy-related adverse events of patients who had short LOC versus prolonged LOC. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was undertaken at a large metropolitan tertiary hospital. Factors known at the time of tracheostomy insertion, including patient, acuity, medical, airway, and tracheostomy factors, were analysed using Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier survival curves, with statistically significant factors then analysed using univariate logistic regression to determine a relationship to short or prolonged LOC as defined by the lowest and highest quartiles of the study cohort. The number of tracheostomy-related adverse events was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients who had their tracheostomy performed for loss of upper airway were associated with short LOC (odds ratio [OR]: 2.30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-5.25) p = 0.049). Three factors were associated with prolonged LOC: an abdominal/gastrointestinal tract diagnosis (OR: 5.00 [95% CI: 1.40-17.87] p = 0.013), major surgery (OR: 2.51 [95% CI: 1.05-6.01] p = 0.038), and intubation for >12 days (OR: 0.30 [95% CI: 0.09-0.97] p = 0.044). Patients who had one or ≥2 tracheostomy-related adverse events had a high likelihood of prolonged LOC (OR: 5.21 [95% CI: 1.95-13.94] p = ≤0.001 and OR: 12.17 [95% CI: 2.68-55.32] p ≤ 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Some factors that are known at the time of tracheostomy insertion are associated with duration of tracheostomy cannulation. Tracheostomy-related adverse events are related to a high risk of prolonged LOC.

Speech-Language Pathology Guidance for Tracheostomy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International Multidisciplinary Perspective.

Purpose As the COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded, there has been growing recognition of risks to frontline health care workers. When caring for patients with tracheostomy, speech-language pathologists have significant exposure to mucosal surfaces, secretions, and aerosols that may harbor the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This tutorial provides guidance on practices for safely performing patient evaluation and procedures, thereby reducing risk of infection. Method Data were collated through review of literature, guidelines, and consensus statements relating to COVID-19 and similar high-consequent infections, with a focus on mitigating risk of transmission to health care workers. Particular emphasis was placed on speech-language pathologists, nurses, and other allied health professionals. A multinational interdisciplinary team then analyzed findings, arriving at recommendations through consensus via electronic communications and video conference. Results Reports of transmission of infection to health care workers in the current COVID-19 pandemic and previous outbreaks substantiate the need for safe practices. Many procedures routinely performed by speech-language pathologists have a significant risk of infection due to aerosol generation. COVID-19 testing can inform level of protective equipment, and meticulous hygiene can stem spread of nosocomial infection. Modifications to standard clinical practice in tracheostomy are often required. Personal protective equipment, including either powered air-purifying respirator or N95 mask, gloves, goggles, and gown, are needed when performing aerosol-generating procedures in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 infection. Conclusions Speech-language pathologists are often called on to assist in the care of patients with tracheostomy and known or suspected COVID-19 infection. Appropriate care of these patients is predicated on maintaining the health and safety of the health care team. Careful adherence to best practices can significantly reduce risk of infectious transmission.

Tracheostomy in the COVID-19 era: global and multidisciplinary guidance.

Global health care is experiencing an unprecedented surge in the number of critically ill patients who require mechanical ventilation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The requirement for relatively long periods of ventilation in those who survive means that many are considered for tracheostomy to free patients from ventilatory support and maximise scarce resources. COVID-19 provides unique challenges for tracheostomy care: health-care workers need to safely undertake tracheostomy procedures and manage patients afterwards, minimising risks of nosocomial transmission and compromises in the quality of care. Conflicting recommendations exist about case selection, the timing and performance of tracheostomy, and the subsequent management of patients. In response, we convened an international working group of individuals with relevant expertise in tracheostomy. We did a literature and internet search for reports of research pertaining to tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic, supplemented by sources comprising statements and guidance on tracheostomy care. By synthesising early experiences from countries that have managed a surge in patient numbers, emerging virological data, and international, multidisciplinary expert opinion, we aim to provide consensus guidelines and recommendations on the conduct and management of tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Global Tracheostomy Collaborative: data-driven improvements in patient safety through multidisciplinary teamwork, standardisation, education, and patient partnership.

There is growing recognition of the need for a coordinated, systematic approach to caring for patients with a tracheostomy. Tracheostomy-related adverse events remain a pervasive global problem, accounting for half of all airway-related deaths and hypoxic brain damage in critical care units. The Global Tracheostomy Collaborative (GTC) was formed in 2012 to improve patient safety and quality of care, emphasising knowledge, skills, teamwork, and patient-centred approaches. Inspired by quality improvement leads in Australia, the UK, and the USA, the GTC implements and disseminates best practices across hospitals and healthcare trusts. Its database collects patient-level information on quality, safety, and organisational efficiencies. The GTC provides an organising structure for quality improvement efforts, promoting safety of paediatric and adult patients. Successful implementation requires instituting key drivers for change that include effective training for health professionals; multidisciplinary team collaboration; engagement and involvement of patients, their families, and carers; and data collection that allows tracking of outcomes. We report the history of the collaborative, its database infrastructure and analytics, and patient outcomes from more than 6500 patients globally. We characterise this patient population for the first time at such scale, reporting predictors of adverse events, mortality, and length of stay indexed to patient characteristics, co-morbidities, risk factors, and context. In one example, the database allowed identification of a previously unrecognised association between bleeding and mortality, reflecting ability to uncover latent risks and promote safety. The GTC provides the foundation for future risk-adjusted benchmarking and a learning community that drives ongoing quality improvement efforts worldwide.

Multidisciplinary Tracheostomy Care: How Collaboratives Drive Quality Improvement.

There have been reports of successful quality-improvement initiatives surrounding tracheostomy care for more than a decade, but widespread adoption of best practices has not been universal. Five key drivers have been found to improve the quality of care for tracheostomy patients: multidisciplinary synchronous ward rounds, standardization of care protocols, appropriate interdisciplinary education and staff allocation, patient and family involvement, and use of data to drive improvement. The Global Tracheostomy Collaborative is a quality-improvement collaborative dedicated to improving the care of tracheostomy patients worldwide through communication, dissemination, and implementation of proven strategies based on these 5 key drivers.

Outcomes of patients with spinal cord injury before and after introduction of an interdisciplinary tracheostomy team.

OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and a tracheostomy tube (TT), before and after the introduction of a tracheostomy review and management service (TRAMS) for ward-based patients. DESIGN: Matched-pairs design with two cohorts, before and after the intervention. SETTING: 900-bed tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Victoria. PARTICIPANTS: SCI patients with a TT that was removed: 34 patients in the post-TRAMS period (September 2003 to September 2006) were matched to 34 from the pre-TRAMS period (September 1999 to December 2001). INTERVENTION: TRAMS was introduced as a consultative team of specialist physicians, clinical nurse consultants, physiotherapists and speech pathologists. The team coordinated tracheostomy care, conducted twice-weekly rounds, and provided policy, education, and support. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of length of stay (LOS), duration of cannulation (DOC), improved communication through use of a one-way valve, number of adverse events and related costs. RESULTS: Median patient LOS decreased from 60 days (interquartile range [IQR], 38-106) to 41.5 days (IQR, 29- 62) (P = 0.03). The pre-TRAMS median DOC decreased from 22.5 days (IQR, 17-58) to 16.5 days (IQR, 12-25) (P = 0.08). Speaking-valve use increased from 35% (12/34) to 82% (28/34) (P < 0.01). Median time to a valve trial decreased from 22 days (IQR, 13-44) to 6 days (IQR, 4-10) after TT insertion (P < 0.01). There were two tracheostomy-related medical emergency calls pre-TRAMS and none post-TRAMS. There were no tracheostomy-related deaths in either group. The annual cost savings from implementing TRAMS were about eight times greater than the cost of service provision. CONCLUSION: Implementing a tracheostomy review and management service improved outcomes for SCI patients: they left acute care sooner, spoke sooner, and the TT was removed earlier, with associated cost savings.