PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary tracheostomy teams have been implemented in acute hospitals over the past 10 years. This systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effect of tracheostomy teams on patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of the literature in the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and AMED. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, and included articles were assessed against quality criteria. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were completed. RESULTS: Seven studies were included. The studies were all pre-post cohort designs of low-moderate quality. Meta-analysis showed that tracheostomy teams were associated with reductions in total tracheostomy time (4 studies; mean difference, 8 days; 95% confidence interval, 6-11; P < .01; I(2) = 0%) and hospital length of stay (LOS) (3 studies; mean difference, -14 days; 95% confidence interval, -39 to 9; P = .23; I(2) = 50%). Reductions in intensive care unit LOS (3 studies) and increases in speaking valve (3 studies) use were also reported with tracheostomy teams. CONCLUSION: There is low-quality evidence that multidisciplinary tracheostomy care contributes to a reduction in total tracheostomy time and increase speaking valve use for patients leading to improved quality of life. There is insufficient evidence to determine that multidisciplinary tracheostomy teams reduce hospital or intensive care unit LOS. Crown
PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary tracheostomy teams have been implemented in acute hospitals over the past 10 years. This systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effect of tracheostomy teams on patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of the literature in the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and AMED. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, and included articles were assessed against quality criteria. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were completed. RESULTS: Seven studies were included. The studies were all pre-post cohort designs of low-moderate quality. Meta-analysis showed that tracheostomy teams were associated with reductions in total tracheostomy time (4 studies; mean difference, 8 days; 95% confidence interval, 6-11; P < .01; I(2) = 0%) and hospital length of stay (LOS) (3 studies; mean difference, -14 days; 95% confidence interval, -39 to 9; P = .23; I(2) = 50%). Reductions in intensive care unit LOS (3 studies) and increases in speaking valve (3 studies) use were also reported with tracheostomy teams. CONCLUSION: There is low-quality evidence that multidisciplinary tracheostomy care contributes to a reduction in total tracheostomy time and increase speaking valve use for patients leading to improved quality of life. There is insufficient evidence to determine that multidisciplinary tracheostomy teams reduce hospital or intensive care unit LOS. Crown
Authors: Sonja Suntrup; Thomas Marian; Jens Burchard Schröder; Inga Suttrup; Paul Muhle; Stephan Oelenberg; Christina Hamacher; Jens Minnerup; Tobias Warnecke; Rainer Dziewas Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 17.440