Evidence Hub

Evaluation of multi-component interventions for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia in older adults: a randomized, controlled trial

B. H. Rosario, Humaira Shafi, A. Yii, L. Tee, A. Ang, G. K. Png, W. S. T. Ang, Y. Lee et al.

European Geriatric Medicine, 2021

123 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

RCT to evaluate the efficacy of multi-component interventions for prevention of hospital-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized older patients. The multi-component interventions did not reduce hospital-acquired pneumonia but increased the mean time to next hospitalisation due to respiratory infection (11.5 months vs. 9.5 months; P = 0.049), and reduced the risk of hospitalisation in 1 year (18.6% vs. 34.4%; P = 0.049). This was likely due to the increased recognition of oropharyngeal dysphagia (35.6% vs. 20.3%; P < 0.001) and improved influenza (54.5% vs 17.2%; P < 0.001) and pneumococcal vaccination rates (52.5% vs. 20.3%; P < 0.001). A multi-component intervention for nosocomial pneumonia may not significantly reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia but significantly increases the frequency of diagnosis of oropharyngeal dysphagia, improves vaccination rates and can reduce future hospitalisations for respiratory infections in older adults. To evaluate the efficacy of multi-component interventions for prevention of hospital-acquired pneumonia in older patients hospitalized in geriatric wards. A randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial was undertaken in patients aged 65 and above who were admitted to a tertiary hospital geriatric unit from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 for an acute non-respiratory illness. Participants were randomized by to receive either a multi-component intervention (consisting of reverse Trendelenburg position, dysphagia screening, oral…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 123 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free