Evaluation of a Specialised Tracheostomy Team for the Management of Patients With a Tracheostomy Cannula in a Belgium General Hospital: A Retrospective Study.

Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
AgeNot listed
SponsorVitaz

About this trial

Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) frequently require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Difficulties in weaning from mechanical ventilation represent an important indication for performing a tracheotomy, which involves creating a temporary opening in the trachea into which a cannula is inserted. This procedure is often confused with a tracheostomy, in which a permanent stoma is created.

Tracheotomy offers several clinical benefits, including increased patient comfort, reduced sedation requirements, decreased work of breathing, improved oral hygiene, a lower risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia, and lower mortality. With the increasing use of the percutaneous technique, the procedure is increasingly performed by intensivists. Consequently, the number of patients with a tracheostomy cannula in the ICU is increasing.

Following clinical stabilisation, these patients are transferred to inpatient wards throughout the hospital according to their underlying pathology. However, nurses working on these wards encounter tracheostomy-related care less frequently, which may include suctioning, wound care, cannula care, and decannulation.

Despite the availability of clinical procedures and protocols, a lack of knowledge, skills, and confidence in providing safe tracheostomy-related care persists. This increases the risk of complications such as cannula obstruction, infection, hypoxaemia, dislodgement, and bleeding. To address this issue, specialised multidisciplinary tracheostomy teams are increasingly being implemented.

The aim of this retrospective study is to answer the following research question: What is the impact of a specialised multidisciplinary tracheostomy team on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with a tracheostomy cannula?

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Hospitalisation between 2010 and 2026 in VITAZ (general hospital, Belgium)

Age ≥18 years.

Presence of a tracheostomy cannula (tracheotomy, permanent tracheostomy, or laryngectomy).

Curative and palliative patients will be included.

Disqualifiers

Ambulatory care

Day hospitalisation

Trial population

This retrospective study will include adult patients aged ≥18 years who were hospitalised between 2010 and 2026 and had a tracheostomy cannula during their hospitalisation. The study population will include patients with a tracheotomy, permanent tracheostomy, or laryngectomy, irrespective of whether care was provided with curative or palliative intent. Both patients admitted to the intensive care unit and those subsequently transferred to inpatient wards will be included. Patients receiving ambulatory care or day hospitalisation will be excluded.

Trial design

Design model

Other

Time perspective

Retrospective

Treatments tested in this trial

  • The implementation of the specialised multidisciplinary tracheostomy team.

    Other intervention

    The intervention of interest is the implementation of the specialised multidisciplinary tracheostomy team, which provides structured, team-based care for patients with a tracheostomy cannula.

Treatment groups

200 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Pre-intervention cohort: Before specialised tracheostomy team implementation0 interventions
Group B: Post-intervention cohort: After specialised tracheostomy team implementation1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Tracheo(s)tomy-related ICU readmission

Occurrence of readmission to the intensive care unit due to tracheo(s)tomy cannula-related problems.

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year
2

Successful decannulation

Successful decannulation of the tracheo(s)tomy cannula according to predefined criteria derived from the literature. The proportion of patients achieving successful decannulation will be compared between the pre-intervention and post-intervention cohorts.

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year
3

Tracheo(s)tomy-related complications

Occurrence of predefined canulla-related complications, including airway obstruction, wound infection, bleeding, ... .

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year
4

Performance of FEES

Performance of a fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) during hospitalisation.

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year

Secondary outcomes

1

Total hospital length of stay

From hospital admission until hospital discharge

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year
2

Use of high-flow oxygen therapy or active humidification

Use of high-flow oxygen therapy and/or active humidification during hospitalisation.

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year
3

Time to tracheo(s)tomy

Number of days from hospital admission to the performance of the tracheo(s)tomy.

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year
4

Time from ICU admission to transfer to an inpatient ward

Duration of intensive care unit stay before transfer to an inpatient ward.

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options: