Normal saline and lung recruitment with paediatric endotracheal suction (NARES): A pilot, factorial, randomised controlled trial

Implementing paediatric appropriate use criteria for endotracheal suction to reduce complications in mechanically ventilated children with respiratory infections

BACKGROUND

Endotracheal suction is used to maintain endotracheal tube patency. There is limited guidance to inform clinical practice for children with respiratory infections.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of a paediatric endotracheal suction appropriate use guideline Paediatric AirWay Suction (PAWS) is associated with an increased use of appropriate and decreased use of inappropriate suction interventions.

METHODS

A mixed-method, pre-implementation-post-implementation study was conducted between September 2021 and April 2022. Suction episodes in mechanically ventilated children with a respiratory infection were eligible. Using a structured approach, we implemented the PAWS guideline in a single paediatric intensive care unit. Evaluation included clinical (e.g., suction intervention appropriateness), implementation (e.g., acceptability), and cost outcomes (implementation costs). Associations between implementation of the PAWS guideline and appropriateness of endotracheal suction intervention use were investigated using generalised linear models.

RESULTS

Data from 439 eligible suctions were included in the analysis. Following PAWS implementation, inappropriate endotracheal tube intervention use reduced from 99% to 58%, an absolute reduction (AR) of 41% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25%, 56%). Reductions were most notable for open suction systems (AR: 48%; 95% CI: 30%, 65%), 0.9% sodium chloride use (AR: 23%; 95% CI: 8%, 38%) and presuction and postsuction manual bagging (38%; 95% CI: 16%, 60%, and 86%; 95% CI: 73%, 99%), respectively. Clinicians perceived PAWS as acceptable and suitable for use.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of endotracheal tube suction appropriate use guidelines in a mixed paediatric intensive care unit was associated with a large reduction in inappropriate suction intervention use in paediatric patients with respiratory infections.

The Paediatric AirWay Suction (PAWS) appropriateness guide for endotracheal suction interventions

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Endotracheal suction is an invasive and potentially harmful technique used for airway clearance in mechanically ventilated children. Choice of suction intervention remains a complex and variable process. We sought to develop appropriate use criteria for endotracheal suction interventions used in paediatric populations.

METHODS

The RAND Corporation and University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method was used to develop the Paediatric AirWay Suction appropriateness guide. This included defining key terms, synthesising current evidence, engaging an expert multidisciplinary panel, case scenario development, and two rounds of appropriateness ratings (weighing harm with benefit). Indications (clinical scenarios) were developed from common applications or anticipated use, current practice guidelines, clinical trial results, and expert consultation.

RESULTS

Overall, 148 (19%) scenarios were rated as appropriate (benefit outweighs harm), 542 (67%) as uncertain, and 94 (11%) as inappropriate (harm outweighs benefit). Disagreement occurred in 24 (3%) clinical scenarios, namely presuction and postsuction bagging across populations and age groups. In general, the use of closed suction was rated as appropriate, particularly in the subspecialty population 'patients with highly infectious respiratory disease'. Routine application of 0.9% saline for nonrespiratory indications was more likely to be inappropriate/uncertain than appropriate. Panellists preferred clinically indicated suction versus routine suction in most circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate use criteria for endotracheal suction in the paediatric intensive care have the potential to impact clinical decision-making, reduce practice variability, and improve patient outcomes. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research.

Appropriate use criteria for endotracheal suction interventions in mechanically ventilated children: The RAND/UCLA development process

OBJECTIVES

Endotracheal suction is an invasive airway clearance technique used in mechanically ventilated children. This article outlines the methods used to develop appropriate use criteria for endotracheal suction interventions in mechanically ventilated paediatric patients.

METHODS

The RAND Corporation and University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method was used to develop paediatric appropriate use criteria. This included the following sequential phases of defining scope and key terms, a literature review and synthesis, expert multidisciplinary panel selection, case scenario development, and appropriateness ratings by an interdisciplinary expert panel over two rounds. The panel comprised experts in the fields of paediatric and neonatal intensive care, respiratory medicine, infectious diseases, critical care nursing, implementation science, retrieval medicine, and education. Case scenarios were developed iteratively by interdisciplinary experts and derived from common applications or anticipated intervention uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining interventions efficacy and safety. Scenarios were rated on a scale of 1 (harm outweighs benefit) to 9 (benefit outweighs harm), to define appropriate use (median: 7 to 9), uncertain use (median: 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median: 1 to 3) of endotracheal suction interventions. Scenarios were than classified as a level of appropriateness.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method provides a thorough and transparent method to inform development of the first appropriate use criteria for endotracheal suction interventions in paediatric patients.