Ineffective Airway Clearance in Surgical Patients: Evaluation of Nursing Interventions and Outcomes

PURPOSE To evaluate the benefits of NIC interventions in postoperative patients with ineffective airway clearance (00031). METHODS Quasi‐experimental study with interrupted time‐series design. A total of 101 patients were evaluated during 4 days based on the nursing outcome Respiratory Status: Airwa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of nursing knowledge Vol. 30; no. 4; pp. 251 - 256
Main Authors: da Silva, Lorrany Fontenele Moraes, Pascoal, Lívia Maia, Nunes, Simony Fabíola Lopes, Sousa Freire, Vanessa Emille Carvalho, Araújo Almeida, Alana Gomes, Gontijo, Paula Vitória Costa, Neto, Marcelino Santos
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 01-10-2019
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:PURPOSE To evaluate the benefits of NIC interventions in postoperative patients with ineffective airway clearance (00031). METHODS Quasi‐experimental study with interrupted time‐series design. A total of 101 patients were evaluated during 4 days based on the nursing outcome Respiratory Status: Airway Patency (0410). FINDINGS Interventions such as cough enhancement (3250), ventilation assistance (3390), and airway management (3140) contributed to significative improvements of the patients’ airway patency. Site of surgery and patients’ intrinsic characteristics were proven to have influence in the NOC ratings. CONCLUSIONS Interventions implemented during the research contributed to improvement of clinical indicators of airway patency. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE Postoperative respiratory complications can be minimized by the use of standardized nursing languages.
Bibliography:Authors’ contributions
LFMS, LMP, SFLN, PVCG, VECSF, AGAA, and MSN contributed to the conception and design of this study. LMP, SFLN, LFMS, and AGAA contributed to the acquisition of data. LMP, LFMS, SFLN, VECSF, and MSN performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. LFMS, LMP, SFLN, PVCG, VECSF, AGAA, and MSN reviewed the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflict of interest
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:2047-3087
2047-3095
DOI:10.1111/2047-3095.12242