Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Performance of mechanical ventilators at the patient's home: a multicentre quality control study.
Thorax. 2006 May; 61(5):400-4.T

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Quality control procedures vary considerably among the providers of equipment for home mechanical ventilation (HMV).

METHODS

A multicentre quality control survey of HMV was performed at the home of 300 patients included in the HMV programmes of four hospitals in Barcelona. It consisted of three steps: (1) the prescribed ventilation settings, the actual settings in the ventilator control panel, and the actual performance of the ventilator measured at home were compared; (2) the different ventilator alarms were tested; and (3) the effect of differences between the prescribed settings and the actual performance of the ventilator on non-programmed readmissions of the patient was determined.

RESULTS

Considerable differences were found between actual, set, and prescribed values of ventilator variables; these differences were similar in volume and pressure preset ventilators. The percentage of patients with a discrepancy between the prescribed and actual measured main ventilator variable (minute ventilation or inspiratory pressure) of more than 20% and 30% was 13% and 4%, respectively. The number of ventilators with built in alarms for power off, disconnection, or obstruction was 225, 280 and 157, respectively. These alarms did not work in two (0.9%), 52 (18.6%) and eight (5.1%) ventilators, respectively. The number of non-programmed hospital readmissions in the year before the study did not correlate with the index of ventilator error.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrates the current limitations of the quality control of HMV and suggests that improvements should be made to ensure adequate ventilator settings and correct ventilator performance and ventilator alarm operation.

Links

PMC Free PDF

Authors+Show Affiliations

Farré R
Unitat de Biofísica i Bioenginyeria, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain. rfarre@ub.edu
Navajas D
No affiliation info available
Prats E
No affiliation info available
Marti S
No affiliation info available
Guell R
No affiliation info available
Montserrat JM
No affiliation info available
Tebe C
No affiliation info available
Escarrabill J
No affiliation info available

MeSH

Analysis of VarianceEquipment DesignEquipment FailureHome Care ServicesHumansQuality ControlReference StandardsRespiration, ArtificialRisk ManagementVentilators, Mechanical

Pub Type(s)

Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16467068

Citation

Farré, R, et al. "Performance of Mechanical Ventilators at the Patient's Home: a Multicentre Quality Control Study." Thorax, vol. 61, no. 5, 2006, pp. 400-4.
Farré R, Navajas D, Prats E, et al. Performance of mechanical ventilators at the patient's home: a multicentre quality control study. Thorax. 2006;61(5):400-4.
Farré, R., Navajas, D., Prats, E., Marti, S., Guell, R., Montserrat, J. M., Tebe, C., & Escarrabill, J. (2006). Performance of mechanical ventilators at the patient's home: a multicentre quality control study. Thorax, 61(5), 400-4.
Farré R, et al. Performance of Mechanical Ventilators at the Patient's Home: a Multicentre Quality Control Study. Thorax. 2006;61(5):400-4. PubMed PMID: 16467068.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Performance of mechanical ventilators at the patient's home: a multicentre quality control study. AU - Farré,R, AU - Navajas,D, AU - Prats,E, AU - Marti,S, AU - Guell,R, AU - Montserrat,J M, AU - Tebe,C, AU - Escarrabill,J, Y1 - 2006/02/07/ PY - 2006/2/10/pubmed PY - 2006/5/31/medline PY - 2006/2/10/entrez SP - 400 EP - 4 JF - Thorax JO - Thorax VL - 61 IS - 5 N2 - BACKGROUND: Quality control procedures vary considerably among the providers of equipment for home mechanical ventilation (HMV). METHODS: A multicentre quality control survey of HMV was performed at the home of 300 patients included in the HMV programmes of four hospitals in Barcelona. It consisted of three steps: (1) the prescribed ventilation settings, the actual settings in the ventilator control panel, and the actual performance of the ventilator measured at home were compared; (2) the different ventilator alarms were tested; and (3) the effect of differences between the prescribed settings and the actual performance of the ventilator on non-programmed readmissions of the patient was determined. RESULTS: Considerable differences were found between actual, set, and prescribed values of ventilator variables; these differences were similar in volume and pressure preset ventilators. The percentage of patients with a discrepancy between the prescribed and actual measured main ventilator variable (minute ventilation or inspiratory pressure) of more than 20% and 30% was 13% and 4%, respectively. The number of ventilators with built in alarms for power off, disconnection, or obstruction was 225, 280 and 157, respectively. These alarms did not work in two (0.9%), 52 (18.6%) and eight (5.1%) ventilators, respectively. The number of non-programmed hospital readmissions in the year before the study did not correlate with the index of ventilator error. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the current limitations of the quality control of HMV and suggests that improvements should be made to ensure adequate ventilator settings and correct ventilator performance and ventilator alarm operation. SN - 0040-6376 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16467068/Performance_of_mechanical_ventilators_at_the_patient's_home:_a_multicentre_quality_control_study_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -