No abstract

Objective: The primary objective of our study was to determine the quality of life (QOL) using a talking tracheostomy tube. Methods: Randomized clinical trial (NCT2018562). Adult intensive care unit patients who were mechanically ventilated, awake, alert, attempting to communicate, English-speaking, and could not tolerate one-way speaking valve were included. Intervention comprised a Blue Line Ultra Suctionaid (BLUSA) talking tracheostomy tube (Smiths Medical, Dublin, OH, US). Outcome measures included QOL scores measured using Quality of Life in Mechanically Ventilated Patients (QOL-MV) and Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL), Speech Intelligibility Test (SIT) scores, independence, and satisfaction.Results: The change in V-RQOL scores from pre-to postintervention was higher among patients using a BLUSA (Smiths Medical) compared to those who did not (P = 0.001). The QOL-MV scores from pre-to postintervention were significantly higher among patients who used a BLUSA (Smiths Medical) compared to patients who did not use BLUSA (Smiths Medical) or a one-way speaking valve (P = 0.04). SIT scores decreased by 6.4 points for each 1-point increase in their Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (P = 0.04). The overall QOL-MV scores correlated moderately with the overall V-RQOL scores (correlation coefficient = 0.59). Cronbach alpha score for overall QOL-MV was 0.71. Seventy-three percent of the 22 intervention patients reported the ability to use the BLUSA (Smiths Medical) with some level of independence, whereas 41% reported some level of satisfaction with the use of BLUSA (Smiths Medical). The lengths of stay was longer in the intervention group.Conclusion: Our study suggests that BLUSA (Smiths Medical) talking tracheostomy tube improves patient-reported QOL in mechanically ventilated patients with a tracheostomy who cannot tolerate cuff deflation.

Objective To identify core practices for workforce management of communication and swallowing functions in COVID-19 positive patients within the ICU. Design A modified Delphi methodology was utilized, with 3 electronic voting rounds. AGREE II and an adapted COVID-19 survey framework from physiotherapy were used to develop survey statements. Sixty-six statements pertaining to workforce planning and management of communication and swallowing function in the ICU were included. Setting Electronic modified Delphi process. Participants 35 speech-language pathologists (SLPs) from 6 continents representing 12 countries. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures The main outcome was consensus agreement, defined a priori as ≥70% of participants with a mean Likert score ≥7.0 (11-point scale: “0” = strongly disagree, “10” strongly agree). Prioritization rank order of statements in a 4 th round was also conducted. Results SLPs with a median of 15 years ICU experience, working primarily in clinical (54%), in academic (29%) or managerial (17%) positions, completed all voting rounds. After the third round, 64 statements (97%) met criteria. Rank ordering identified issues of high importance. Conclusions A set of global consensus statements to facilitate planning and delivery of rehabilitative care for patients admitted to the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic were agreed by an international expert SLP group. Statements focus on considerations for workforce preparation, resourcing and training, and the management of communication and swallowing functions. These statements support and provide direction for all members of the rehabilitation team to use for patients admitted to the ICU during a global pandemic.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this clinical focus article is to describe the frequency, indications, and outcomes of fenestrated tracheostomy tube use in a large academic institution. Method A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate the use of fenestrated tracheostomy tubes between 2007 and 2017. Patients were included in the study if they were ≥ 18 years of age and received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube in the recent 10-year period. Results Of 2,000 patients who received a tracheostomy, 15 patients had a fenestrated tracheostomy tube; however, only 5 patients received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube at the study institution. The primary reason why the 15 patients received a tracheostomy was chronic respiratory failure (73%); other reasons included airway obstruction (20%) and airway protection (7%). Thirteen (87%) patients received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube for phonation purposes. The remaining 2 patients received it as a step to weaning. Of the 13 patients who received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube for phonation, only 1 patient was not able to phonate. Nine (60%) patients developed some type of complications: granulation only, 2 (13.3%); granulation and tracheomalacia, 2 (13.3%); granulation and stenosis, 4 (26.7%); and granulation, tracheomalacia, and stenosis, 1 (6.7%). Conclusions Fenestrated tracheostomy tubes may assist with phonation in patients who cannot tolerate a 1-way speaking valve; however, the risk of developing granulation tissue, tracheomalacia, and tracheal stenosis exists. Health care providers should be educated on the safe use of a fenestrated tracheostomy tube and other options available to improve phonation while ensuring patient safety.