Marwa F Moustafa, Nayera M Tantawey, Azza H El-Soussi and Fardous A Ramadan
Aim: Oral care is too forgotten in the physiological crises of critical illness, but problems developing from their time in ICU can cause long-term oral and nosocomial disease. Maintaining oral health in the critically ill patient is an essential nursing activity and the state of a patient’s mouth can be an index of nursing care received. Critical care nurses can contribute a lot in the prevention of VAP, and thereby helps to reduce healthcare costs. Understanding VAP and its risk factors can make nurses more prepared in handling the problem. Preventive measures should be widely applied to daily nursing care. Each critical nurse can play a functional role in reducing and preventing the occurrence of VAP, subsequently improving the patients' recovery rate and consequently reducing healthcare costs. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of oral care intervention on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia
Methods: The sixty patients were assigned in two groups (control and study) thirty in each. The control group involved patients receiving the routine nursing oral care while the study group involved patients who utilized oral care intervention using toothbrush and chlorhexidine
Results: A Statistical significant difference was found between both groups as regard to occurrence of Ventilator associated pneumonia VAP (p=0.001). Regarding, days of ICU stay. It was found that only 33.3% of patients in the study group stayed more than 7 days in the ICU compared to73.3% of patients the control group. There was a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.002). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (on day1) among the oral assessment. There were highly statistically significant differences among both groups in relation to oral assessment after completion of oral care intervention (p<0.001). Regarding the sixth day of intervention, it can be observed that more than half of patients in the control group suffered from severe oral alteration (11+) compared to patients in the study group. There was a highly statistically significant difference between the study and control groups at the end of intervention (p<0.001). Following up these patients and occurrence of VAP at the end of oral care intervention, it can be noted that There was a highly significantly difference among patients in the control group and patients in the study group (p=0.006).
Conclusions: The findings indicate that comprehensive oral care intervention appears to be effective in improving oral health status and reducing Ventilator associated pneumonia occurrence.