Search

This article aims to determine how quality of life (QoL) is defined and assessed in cases of severe craniofacial anomalies, as well as the impact such considerations may have on the treatment of a neonate with these conditions with respect to palliative neonatal care. Our literature review found insufficient evidence to suggest that craniofacial anomalies result in consistently poor QoL. Based on these findings and in line with the current acceptable standards for the ethical care of neonates, with the exception of rare cases, resuscitative efforts should always be performed on patients with isolated craniofacial anomalies, as demonstrated in the management of this reported patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to determine how quality of life (QoL) is defined and assessed in cases of severe craniofacial anomalies, as well as the impact such considerations may have on the treatment of a neonate with these conditions with respect to palliative neonatal care. Our literature review found insufficient evidence to suggest that craniofacial anomalies result in consistently poor QoL. Based on these findings and in line with the current acceptable standards for the ethical care of neonates, with the exception of rare cases, resuscitative efforts should always be performed on patients with isolated craniofacial anomalies, as demonstrated in the management of this reported patient., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective To determine if standardization of perioperative tracheostomy care procedures decreased the incidence of hospital-acquired tracheostomy-related pressure ulcers. Methods All patients at least 18 years old who underwent placement of a tracheostomy tube in the operating room from July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, were cared for postoperatively through an institutionally adopted quality improvement protocol. This included 4 elements: (1) placement of a hydrocolloid dressing underneath the tracheostomy flange in the postoperative period, (2) removal of plate sutures within 7 days of the tracheostomy procedure, (3) placement of a polyurethane foam dressing after suture removal, and (4) neutral positioning of the head. One year after the bundle was initiated, a retrospective analysis was performed to compare the percentage of tracheostomy patients who developed pressure ulcers versus the preintervention period. Results The incidence of tracheostomy-related pressure ulcers decreased from 20 of 183 tracheostomies (10.93%) prior to use of the standardized protocol to 2 of 155 tracheostomies (1.29%). Chi-square analysis showed a significant difference between the groups, with a P value of .0003. Discussion Adoption of this care bundle at our institution resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of hospital-acquired tracheostomy-related pressure ulcers. The impact of any single intervention within our protocol was not assessed and could be an area of further investigation. Implications for Practice Adoption of a standardized posttracheostomy care bundle at the institution level may result in the improved care of patients with tracheostomies and specifically may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers.