Download comprehensive oral hygiene, through oral care kits, helps to prevent

HALYARD* Oral Care
Designed by Nurses for Nurses
COMPREHENSIVE ORAL HYGIENE, THROUGH
ORAL CARE KITS, HELPS TO PREVENT LOWER
RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTIONS AND
PROVIDES COST SAVINGS
A source of lower respiratory tract infections is through
colonisation of bacteria in the oropharynx
•
ood oral hygiene measures help to reduce the
G
number of colonised bacteria in the mouth and
prevent the spread of infection from the oral cavity
to the lower respiratory tract.1,2
•
In a case study of patients from Royal Preston
Hospital, when HALYARD* Oral Care Kits were
introduced for use, an audit showed the rate of
VAP infection had decreased from 19.8 VAP days
per 1000 ventilator days in quarter 4 of 2010 to
13.7 VAP days per 1000 ventilator days in quarter
4 in 2011, a reduction of 31%.12
•
ignificant cost savings could be achieved
S
through a decreased usage of antibiotics and
shorter length of patient stay in the ICU.15
AP pathogens are found to colonise in the oral
V
mucosa and dental plaque of mechanically ventilated
patients 1,4,5
VAP Key Facts:
•
ost common health care infection in ICU5 with
M
prevalence of 9-27% in ventilated ICU patients.6,7,8
•
AP attributable mortality: between 7-30% 9; excess
V
costs: £ 11-23K per case10; excess hospital length of
stay: up to 14 days.11
How to determine cost-effectiveness of new VAP
prevention interventions
o help hospitals determine the cost-effectiveness of
T
a new device or intervention into a VAP prevention
bundle, a cost model has been developed which is
based on two main criteria13
VAP Rate
•
Oral Care kits are proven to reduce VAP and result
into cost savings12
Cost-effectiveness
Relative Risk Reduction
Based on the VAP rate and relative risk reduction,
the model shows you the additional money that can
be spent on VAP prevention interventions, like new
devices, to achieve cost-neutrality.
Cost-effectiveness of an intervention based on baseline ventilator-associated pneumonia rate
and its relative risk reduction2
RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION
BASELINE
VAP RATE
5%
1%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
15%
20%
5
10
20
30
40
50
75
100
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
35
70
140
210
280
350
525
700
40
80
160
240
320
400
600
800
45
90
180
270
360
450
675
900
50
100
200
300
400
500
750
1,000
VALUES IN £
10
20
40
60
80
100
150
200
15
30
60
90
120
150
225
300
20
40
80
120
160
200
300
400
25
50
100
150
200
250
375
500
30
60
120
180
240
300
450
600
Values (£) refer to the average additional expense that can be spent for an intervention, per 10 days of mechanical ventilation, for it to be cost-neutral assuming a VAP cost of £10,000.
VAP, ventilator-associated pneumonia.
How would oral care kits help to
improve patient outcomes and
reduce costs in the ICU?
HALYARD* Oral Care Kits: High Quality Oral Hygiene
Improved patient outcomes14
Decreased VAP rates
Decreased length of stay
Decreased antibiotic use
A practical example of a calculation for an ICU which introduces
HALYARD* Oral Care kits:
•
• Current VAP rate = 4%
Increased efficiency14
• Reduction of VAP as a result of
the introduction of HALYARD*
Oral Care kits = 30%13
•
• Additional investment that can
be made in oral care kits to be
cost neutral = £120 per 10 days
of mechanical ventilation =
£12 per day
•
•
•
•
horter set-up times, leading to
S
time-saving
Standardised and easy to use
components
Easier and cleaner removal of secretions with the innovative selfcleaning covered Yankauer
Improved compliance to oral care protocols
•
•
•
Ensures standardisation of practice
Consistent delivery of oral care at same high quality standard
by all nurses
Quick visual assessment if oral care protocols are being adhered to
1. Senol G1, Kirakli C,Halilçolar H.In vitro antibacterial activities of oral care products against ventilator-associated pneumonia pathogens; Am J Infect Control. 2007 Oct;35(8):531-5. 2. Abidis, RF. Oral care in the intensive care unit: A review. J. Contemp Dent Pract 2007 January;(8)1.076-082.
3. O'Keefe-McCarthy S. Evidence-based nursing strategies to prevent ventilator-acquired pneumonia. Dynamics, The Official Journal of the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses. Spring 2006 Vol. 17, Number 1. 4. Panknin HT. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: review of
national and international guidelines. Pflege Z 2006 Aug;59(8):suppl 2-8. 5. Vincent et al. sepsis in european intensive care units: Results of the SOP study, Critical care medicine 2006. 6. Ibrahim et al. the occurenece of ventilatior associated pneumonia in a community hospital* Risk factors and
clinical outcomes CHEST August 2001 vol. 120 no.2. 7. Craven DE, Steger KA. Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated adult patients; epidemiology and revention in 1996, Semin Respir Infect. 1996. 8. Rello J et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of VAP in large US database. CHEST 2002.
9. Report on the burden of Endemic Health care associated infections worldwide. 10. Bercault, N., & Boulain, T. (2001). Mortality rate attributable to ventilator-associated nosocomial pneumonia in an adult intensive care unit: A prospective case-control study. Crit Care Med, 29(12), 2303. (The
exchange rate applied for $ to € conversion is $ 1.4 = € 1). 11. Eber et al. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:347-53. 12. Case Study report on the usage KimVent* Oral Care kits from Royal Preston Hospital, UK. 13. Wyncoll D, Camporota L: Number needed to treat and cost-effectiveness in the prevention
of ventilator- associated pneumonia, Critical Care 2012, 16:430. 14. Pivkina et al; Impact of efficient Oral Care on pathophysiological mechanisms of developing Ventilator associated Pneumonia; Clinical Pathophysiology, vol. 3/2014, pages 53-57.(Article in Russian).
For more information, please send an email to
[email protected]
or visit www.halyardhealth.co.uk.
www.halyardhealth.co.uk
*Registered Trademark or Trademark of Halyard Health, Inc. or its affiliates. ©2015 HYH. All rights reserved. HC671-01-UK