↓ Skip to main content

Microbiological evaluation of different reprocessing methods for cuffed and un-cuffed tracheostomy tubes in home-care and hospital setting

Overview of attention for article published in GMS Hygiene and Infection Control, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Microbiological evaluation of different reprocessing methods for cuffed and un-cuffed tracheostomy tubes in home-care and hospital setting
Published in
GMS Hygiene and Infection Control, February 2016
DOI 10.3205/dgkh000262
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Leonhard, Ojan Assadian, Michaela Zumtobel, Berit Schneider-Stickler

Abstract

Manufacturers' recommendations on cleaning of tracheostomy tubes focus on general warning information and non-specific manual cleaning procedures. The aim of this experimental study was to evaluate different reprocessing methods and to determine the mechanical integrity and functionality of tracheostomy tubes following reprocessing. Sixteen cuffed or un-cuffed tracheostomy tubes obtained from hospital in-patients were reprocessed using one of the following reprocessing methods: a) manual brushing and rinsing with tap water, b) manual brushing followed by disinfection with a glutaraldehyde solution, c) manual brushing followed machine-based cleaning in a dishwasher, and d) manual brushing followed by ultrasound cleaning in a commercially available ultrasound device. Microbial burden of the tubes before and after reprocessing was assessed by measurement of microbial colony-forming units per mL (CFU/mL) of rinsing fluid. After cleaning, tracheostomy tubes were investigated for loss of functionality. Manual brushing and rinsing with tap water reduced microbial colonization in average by 10(2) CFU/mL, but with poor reproducibility and reliability. Complete microbial reduction was achieved only with additional chemical or machine-based thermal disinfection. Ultrasound sonification yielded no further microbial reduction after manual brushing. Manual brushing alone will not result in complete eradication of microorganism colonising cuffed or un-cuffed tracheostomy tubes. However, manual cleaning followed by chemical or thermal disinfection may be regarded as safe and reproducible reprocessing method. If a machine-based reprocessing method is used for cuffed tubes, the cuffs' ventilation hose must be secured in a safe position prior to thermal disinfection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 5 28%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Chemical Engineering 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from GMS Hygiene and Infection Control
#56
of 134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,596
of 311,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from GMS Hygiene and Infection Control
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.