Development of an InterventionModel for the Prevention of

Aspiration Pneumonia in High-RiskPatients on a Medical-Surgical Unit

Aspiration pneumonia is apulmonary infecfious pro-cess that results from fheinhalation of oropharyn-

geal or gastric contents into the lungs(Shigemitsu & Afshar, 2007). Pul-monary aspirafion is a focal cause ofserious illness and death amongpatients in hospitals and nursinghomes, and is associated with signifi-canfly higher hospital costs (Marik,2011). Because this disease is pre-ventable, efforts to minimize itsoccurrence have surfaced in institu-tions across the United States. Therecommended preventive measuresare two-fold: idenfify high-riskpatients and implement evidence-based practices to prevent occur-rences. Another key element of theprocess is timing. The early identifi-cation of high-risk patients is a crifi-cal element affecfing pafienf ouf-come (Yokoe et al., 2008).

The purpose of fhis article is todescribe an intervention model forthe prevention of aspiration pneu-monia implemented at an urbanteaching hospital in the northeast-ern United States. This included thedevelopment, implementation, andevaluation of an assessmenf fool foridenfifying medical-surgical inpa-tients at high risk for developingaspirafion pneumonia, as well as anaspirafion pneumonia preventionprotocol.

Background

Literature ReviewAspiration pneumonia, a pul-

monary infectious process, is assoei-

Ilia M. EchevarriaAnn Schwoebel

Aspiration pneumonia is associated with significantly high morbidityand mortality rates, accompanied by high health care costs. As aresult, aspiration pneumonia preventive efforts are a national priori-ty The development of an intervention model for the prevention ofaspiration pneumonia in high-risk medical-surgical inpatients at anurban teaching hospital is described. The intervention model consistsof the implementation and evaluation of a risk assessment tool anddevelopment of an aspiration pneumonia prevention protocol.

ated with signifieantly higher mor-bidity and mortality rates, aeeompa-nied by high health care costs(O.sborne, Cardner, Franklin, Tuohy,& Fisher, 2006). Mortality rates fromaspirafion pneumonia range from20% to 65% (Eisenstadt, 2010).Pneumonia can be classified ascommunity-acquired or nosocomi-al. Community-acquired pneumo-nia develops in non-hospitalizedindividuals of all ages, and accountsfor 10% of aspiration pneumoniacases (Shigemitsu & Afshar, 2007).Nosocomial pneumonia, a healthcare-associated infeetion, developsin patients during their hospitaliza-tion frequenfly in infensive eareunits, espeeially in patients intubat-ed for more fhan 48 hours.Incidence is approximafely 20%wifh 10-15 cases per 1,000 days of

mechanical ventilation (Torres &Relio, 2010). When nosocomialpneumonia presents in mechanical-ly ventilated patients, it is known asventilator-associated pneumonia. It isassociated with 25%-50% mortalityand an estimated cost of more fhan$40,000 per episode (Deutsch,Hockey, Rosenblaum, & Curman,2010). The Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevenfion (CDC, 2012)estimates health care-associatedinfeefions develop in approximafely1 of every 20 hospifalized patients. Asa result, prevention of hospital-asso-ciated infeefions is a nafional priority(Yokoe et al, 2008).

Aspiration may manifesf itself ascoughing and choking while eafingor drinking, as well as by drooling,gurgling sounds when speaking, orhoarseness. Silent aspiration, or aspi-

Ilia iVI. Echevarria, MS, MSN, RN, CHES, CCRN, NEA-BC, is Administrative Director of CriticalCare and Inpatient Services, Virtua, Marlton NJ. She was Interim Director of Education,Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, at the time this article was written.

Ann Schwoebel, MSN, CRNP, RNC-NIC, is Clinical Nurse Education Specialist, Intensive CareNursery, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA.

Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge David O'Brien, MSN, RN, ClinicalNurse Education Specialist, Orthopedics, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA.

MEDSURG September-October 2012 • Vol. 21/No. 5 303

Advanced Practice

ration without symptoms, also mayoccur and is even more difficult todetect (Eisenstadt, 2010; Marik,2011). Aspiration of substances, suchas food, fube-feeding formula, saliva,or vomifus, into the respiratory tractcan lead to aspiration pneumonia(Shigemitsu & Afshar, 2007).

Dysphagia, defined as impairmenfof any part of the swallowingprocess, increases the risk of aspira-tion. Dysphagia and aspiration areassociated with the development ofaspirafion pneumonia (Metheny etal., 2006). The ability to swallowsolid food and liquids depends onthe interplay of some 50 pairs ofmuscles in the head and neck. Whilesome changes in swallowing arerelated to aging, dysphagia often isassociated with or caused by neuro-logic impairment, which can inter-fere with the proper function ofthese muscle groups and in turninterfere with the closure of the lar-ynx when food or liquid reaches theback of fhe tongue (NationalInstitute of Neurological Disordersand Stroke [NINDS], 2010). Thesesubstances then can enter the tra-chea and lungs.

Older adults, especially those withneurologic conditions such as stroke,Parkinson's disease, dementia, andmultiple sclerosis, are at risk for dys-phagia and aspiration (NINDS,2010). Patients who have decreasedalertness because of medications,medical conditions, or a combina-tion of these conditions may haveslowed gag and swallowing refiexesand therefore may be less able torespond to régurgitation and vomit-ing. Also, because chewing preparesfood for swallowing, the absence ofteeth or the presence of poorly fitteddentures increases the risk of aspira-tion. Poor oral hygiene promotes thegrowth of pathogenic organisms inthe mouth, thereby increasing therisk of aspiration pneumonia (Marik,2011; Pace & McCullough, 2010).

Reports of the prevalence of dys-phagia vary with study population,diagnosis, and treatment. Dysphagiain older adults is increasingly com-mon, with more than 10% of adultsover age 50 reporting some degree ofswallowing dysfunction (Andrews,Fraser, Heddle, Hebbard, & Checklin,

2008). In nursing homes, 50%-75%of residents have dysphagia; of thispopulation, half will aspirate andone-third will develop pneumonia(Eisenstadt, 2010). "Dysphagia isclinically present in 42% to 67% ofpatients within the first 3 days ofstroke, and the incidence of aspira-tion within the first 5 days rangesfrom 19.5% to 42%" (Trapl et al.,2007, p. 2948). As a result of thesestatistics, the early identification ofconditions and co-morbiditieswhich contribute to dysphagiabecame the main component in theauthors' aspiration risk assessmenttool, and a point of inferesf for fheprotocol.

Aspiration pneumonia representsa significant proporfion of all pneu-monia cases. It is a common cause ofrespiratory illness and death in eldersand debilitated patients, and usuallyaffects older hospitalized adultpatients who have one or more majoraspirafion risk factors (Altman, 2011;Paintal & Kuschner, 2007). Major riskfactors include increased age, stroke,altered mental status, poor oralhygiene, and gastroesophageal refiuxdisease (Shigemitsu & Afshar, 2007).

In 1981, due to the high morbidi-ty and mortality associated withhealth care-associated pneumonia,the CDC published the first guide-lines for the prevention and controlof aspiration pneumonia. Sincerelease of the guidelines, several revi-sions and expansions have beenmade. The mosf recent revision pro-vides detailed recommendations forthe prevention of healfh care-associ-ated bacterial pneumonia (CDC,2004). Numerous acute care hospi-tals have adopted the guidelines inhope of eradicating or minimizingnosocomial pneumonia rates.

Early screening for the detecfion ofaspirafion risk factors is a vital ele-ment for fhe prevention of pneumo-nia. Screening can occur via variousmethods, such as at the patient's bed-side (simple preliminary exams or for-mal bedside swallowing assessments),under videofiuoroscope, or throughfiberoptic endoscopie examination(Bours, Speyer, Lemmens, Limburg, &Wit, 2009). The type of screeningdepends on fhe patient's individual-ized treatment plan. Screening for

dysphagia under videofiuoroscopehas been considered the gold stan-dard for assessing swallowing ability(Bours et al., 2009). However, limita-tions or contraindications to thisinvasive procedure may necessitate aless-invasive bedside screeningapproach. In addition, waiting timesfor invasive procedures can be long,and patients can benefit from pre-vention strategies that are imple-mented far earlier.

Trapl and co-authors (2007) sug-gested most screening tools are com-plex and biased toward fiuid swal-lowing. They developed a simple,stepped bedside screen, the GuggingSwallowing Screen (GUSS). TheGUSS allowed a graded rating withseparate evaluations for nonfiuidand fiuid nutrition, beginning withnonfiuid textures. The GUSS aimedto decrease the risk of aspiration dur-ing the test to a minimum, whileallowing the severity of aspirafionrisk to be assessed. The validity of theGUSS was established by fiberopticendoscope. It is deemed fo be aquick, reliable method to identifypatients with stroke, dysphagia, andaspiration risk at the bedside.

Cichero, Heaton, and Bassett(2009) developed another approachto screen pafients with dysphagia orthose at risk of aspiration on admis-sion to an acute hospital. Theprospective, quasi-experimental trialwas conducted to investigate the uti-lization of a tool that consisted of atwo-phase quesfion screen, a waterswallow test, and a swallowing man-agement plan. Results suggested thedsyphagia screening tool is a quick,robust tool for triaging individualswith dysphagia.

While the procedures described inthese studies allow identificafion ofmany risk factors associated with anaspiration risk, common risk factorssuch as dysphagia can be identifiedearly through proper screeningmethods. This early identificationfurther leads to the implementationof preventive measures to reduceoccurrences. It thus was the drivingforce for this program.

Organizing FrameworkThe Quality Health Outcomes

304 September-October 2012 • Vol. 21/No. 5 M E D S U R G

Development of an Intervention Model for the Prevention of Aspiration Pneumonia in High-Risk Patients on a Medical-Surgical Unit

FIGURE 1.Pneumonia Infections in the Medical Surgical Settings: Pre-lntervention

Trial begins

1stQtr-07 2ndQtr-07 3rd Qtr-07 4th Qtr-07 1stQtr-08 2nd Qtr-08 3rd Qtr-08 4th Qtr-08 1stQtr-09

Planning committee in place

Model (QHOM) served as the organ-izing ftamework for the interventionmodel to be described in this article(Mitchell, Ferketich, & Jennings,1998). The model is ideal for thisproject because it provides a frame-work for studying the quality ofhealth care and describes relation-ships among interventions, patientcharacteristics, health care systemcharacteristics, and patient out-comes. The early identification ofpatients at high risk for developingaspiration pneumonia can lead toimplementation of an aspirationprotocol. Placement of the protocolallows execution of appropriateinterventions to minimize potentialfor developing an aspiration occur-rence. This process should lead toimproved patient and hospital out-comes.

Needs AssessmentIdentification of a need for an

intervention model became evidentafter the third quarter 2007, whenthe number of pneumonia cases inthe medical-surgical settings in-creased from none in the previoustwo quarters to three cases in thepreceding two quarters. In 2007,three pneumonia cases were docu-mented, compared to 10 cases forcalendar year 2008. This representeda 70% increase in total annual cases

(see Figure 1). Data indicated anincrease in aspiration occurrences inthe medical-surgical setting. Theseoccurrences further led to longerhospital stays, as patients were intu-bated routinely and transferred tothe intensive care unit. Infectionsoccurred randomly in multiple med-ical surgical units.

Program Plan

PlanningA sub-committee was formed

under the auspices of the hospital'sexisting Ventüator-Associated Pneu-monia Committee. The AspirationPrecaution Committee was com-prised of an interdisciplinary groupwhich included representatives fromnursing, pharmacy, infection preven-tion, medicine, nutrition, perform-ance improvement, and speech thera-py. Staff from Nursing Educationserved as team leaders.

The primary responsibility of thecommittee was to develop an assess-ment tool which would promote theeasy identification of non-ventilatedpatients at high risk for aspiration,and to develop an interventionmodel to facilitate utilization of thetool. As a result, the Aspiration Pneu-monia Risk Assessment ScreeningTool and Aspiration PrecautionProtocol (see Figures 2 & 4) were

crafted. These tools, which weredeveloped after an extensive litera-ture review, were major componentsof the intervention model. Whilethe purpose of the assessment toolwas to identify patients at risk foraspiration, the resulting protocol wasdesigned to promote the implemen-tation of strategies to reduce identi-fied risks. During development, thetool was revised and reformatted sev-eral times due to feedback receivedfrom the committee members beforeits pilot implementation.

Model ImplementationAfter the commiftee finalized the

three-phase intervention model, thetool was piloted on a neurosurgery/orthopedic medical-surgical unit.The choice of this unit for the pilotwas based on the unit's high-riskpatient population. The interven-tion model commenced in first quar-ter 2009 and was piloted over 4months (see Figure 3). Imple-mentation of the model occurredover three phases. Phase One consist-ed of one-on-one training for properfeeding methods provided by a hos-pital-based speech therapist. Allpatient-care technicians (nursingassistants) on the trial unit, and anumber of adults from the hospital'svolunteer program, attended thetraining. Participants were trainedon proper feeding and positioning

MEDSURG September-October 2012 • Vol. 21/No. S 305

Advanced Practice

FIGURE 2.Aspiration Pneumonia Risk Assessment Tool

Risk Assessment: Check all that apply

NEUROLOGIC:D Decreased level of consiousnessD Diagnosis of history of stroke with residualD Neurodegenerative disease (ALS, Parkinson's)

GASTROINTESTINALD Unable to perform oral hygieneD Full assist with meals (requires help eating)D Presence of a nasal, gastric, or feeding tube

RESPIRATORYD Tracheostomy

D NONE OFTHE ABOVE APPLY Initials:

Functional Assessment: Check all that apply

n Difficulty maintaining sustained level of alertnessD Shortness of breath or oxygen desaturation dur-

ing or after oral intakeLJ Difficulty chewing or sealing lips around cup.

straw, or utensilG Gagging or coughing during oral intakeD Voice changes/wet sounding voice during oral

intake

D NONE OFTHE ABOVE APPLY Initials:

r—y/^ If ONE or more indicators >y

/ are checked: \>- Initiate Aspiration 1

V Precaution Protocol M\. >- Complete Functional Jr

^%,^^ Assessment ..^r

" ' ' ' • = = = = * ' " " " ^

^ ^ ^

y ^ If ONE or more indicators are ^ v

/ >- Maintain Aspiration \/ Precautions Protocol I

>^ Remove all foods and liquids 1\ >^ Initiate NPO status #\ >- Consult Speech Pathology M

\ v Date: Initials: jT

^ ^

techniques, and identification ofpatients who demonstrated signs ofdysphagia and/or aspiration. Thistraining, aligned with the AspirationPrecaution Protocol, suggests apatient who is placed on the proto-col be assisted and monitored close-ly during meals.

Phase Two included educationabout the program objectives, back-ground and overview of the pro-gram, and proper utilization of thenew Risk Assessment Screening Tooland Aspiration Protocol. Educationwas provided by the clinical nurseeducator to all unit professional staff.With the intent of expanding theprogram after the trial completion,education was expanded to includeall medical-surgical registered nursesand patient care technicians. PhaseThree of the intervention modelinvolved the development and revi-sion of patient education material

FIGURE 3.Pneumonia Infections on the Trial Medical-Surgical Unit

After Intervention

8-,

6 -

4 -

2 -1

1stQtr-09

02nd Otr-09

03rd Qtr-09

04th Otr-09

01stOtr-10

for distribution to patients and fam-ilies during program implementa-tion.

During the trial period, allpatients received an aspiration riskassessment on admission to the unit.If a patient was identified as at high

risk, as noted by the indicators onthe Risk Assessment Screening Tool,the nurse would initiate theAspiration Precaution Protocol andcomplete the second part of thescreening tool (the FunctionalAssessment) (see Figure 2). The

306 September-October 2012 • Vol. 21/No. 5 M E D S U R Gisrurnsiisrcs.

Development of an Intervention Model for the Prevention of Aspiration Pneumonia in High-Risk Patients on a Medical-Surgical Unit

FIGURE 4.Aspiration Precaution Protocol

D Aspiration PrecautionProtocol Implemented:RN Signature: . Date:"Aspiration Precautions" should be documented on the patient's Kardex/reportsheet and communicated during hand-off communication.

Place "SWALLOWING PRECAUTIONS" sign above the patient's bed.

Maintain HOB at 45 degrees or higher at all times, unless otherwise contraindi-cated. (If patient's head of bed is flat, maintain tube feedings off.)

Maintain HOB at 90 degrees when eating or drinking. If eating, patient must beassisted with all meals and observed closely during meals.

Maintain operating suction readily available.

Provide oral care each shift.

If NPO, place NPO sign over bed.

Provide patient and/or family with education regarding aspiration precautions,and educational hand-outs.

If patient suspected to have aspirated, notify physician immediately and initiatespeech pathology consult.

Functional Assessment provided amore in-depth evaluation of anyidenrified risk factors. If a patientdemonstrated one or more criteriaon the Functional Assessment (e.g.,pockets food while eating), the nursewould maintain the AspirationPrecaurion Protocol and initiate anNPO status (nothing by mouth) anda speech pathologist consultation.

EvaluationA formative evaluation of the

intervention model was performedduring the trial period. Nursing staffwas asked to provide feedbackregarding ease, usability, and accura-cy of the newly developed RiskAssessment Tool in addition to othercomponents of the intervenrionmodel. Verbal feedback was providedto the clinical nurse educator inmeetings and through interviews. Aspart of the evaluation period, weeklyaudits were performed to determineadherence to the model. Data col-lected included compliance inregards to use of tool, and appropri-ate utilization of the tool.

Early audits indicated a high per-centage of patient placements on theAspiration Precaution Protocol. Dur-ing the first 2 months, while only 31patients met diagnostic criteria forplacement on Aspiration Precau-

tions, 49 patients were placed onprecautions. During the evaluation,the need for an ongoing assessmentin addition to the admission screen-ing was identified. Patients who werenot deemed at high risk upon admis-sion to the unit potentially coulddevelop new risk factors based ontheir diagnosis (e.g., postoperativestatus). To capture this patient popu-lation, staff conducted daily surveil-lance to determine ongoing risks foraspiration. This information wasrelayed to the charge nurse and doc-umented on a daily log.

DiscussionUtilizarion of the OHOM as the

organizing framework during themodel's implementation allowed forprocess restructuring. Nurses wereable to identify the significance ofhaving all model componentsaddressed and implemented. Forexample, allowing nurses to providefeedback regarding the RiskAssessment Tool led to a vital revi-sion of the tool. When performingthe risk assessment, nurses identifiedthe need to have a concrete way ofdocumenting implementation of theAspiration Precaution Protocol onpatients who met the criteria, and if

warranted, that a speech pathologyconsult was placed. The nursing staffsuggested initialing the form wheniniüating the Aspirarion PrecautionProtocol and a speech pathologyconsultation.

The main challenge of the inter-vention model has been achievingconsistency and compliance withfeeding assistance for parients placedon the Aspiration PrecautionProtocol. This is primarily due to lackof personnel resources. As part of theAspirarion Precaution Protocol,patients are required to have assis-tance with all meals and be moni-tored closely. Because team leadersknew this component would provechallenging due to issues associatedwith staffing and high patient-nurseratios, part of the intervention modelconsisted of ufilization of the hospi-tal's volunteers to assist with thisprocess. Unfortunately, the numberof patients needing assistance mayexceed personnel available to help.

In spite of these challenges, thedevelopment of this interventionmodel proved to be successful onvarious levels. The mulridisciplinarycollaboration and the formativeevaluation, which allowed for feed-back during the trial, were two keysto its success. Since implementationof the model on the trial unit, nocases of non-ventilator-related aspi-ration pneumonia have occurred. Asa result of these outcomes, themodel was extended to all medical-surgical areas. Other positive out-comes of this project includeincreased awareness of aspirationrisk factors among nurses andpatient care technicians, increasedpatient and family education regard-ing the pulmonary infectiousprocess, and improved collaborationamong disciplines.

implications for PracticeWith vast supporting evidence

that sustains the detrimental effectsof aspiration pneumonia to both thepatient and the health care organiza-tion, efforts to prevent occurrencesare warranted. For this project, anevidenced-based screening tool andcare protocol were developed toidentify patients at high risk for aspi-

MEDSURG September-October 2012 • Vol. 21/No. S 307

Advanced Practî£e

ration and implement appropriatepreventative interventions. The deci-sion to focus efforts on screening wasmade as a direct result of supportingevidence that suggested early detec-tion of aspiration risk factors as avital element in the prevention ofaspiration pneumonia.

Protocols, clinical pathways, andscreening tools are examples ofprocesses which have improvedstandardization for the identifica-tion, assessment, and treatment ofhospitalized patients with dysphagia(Altman, 2011). An example of ahighly recognized successful screen-ing tool which has been utilizedwidely in nursing is the Morse FallsScale (Harrington et al., 2010). Thistool allows for the rapid assessmentof a patient's likelihood of falling,and offers prevention strategies tar-geted to the risk identified. Manyother recognized treatment flow-charts are utilized to support bestpractice standards by providing evi-denced-based interventions in themanagement and/or prevention ofpatient disease. Health care leadersneed to focus efforts on preventivemeasures as a necessity of effective

REFERENCESAltman, K. (2011 ). Dysphagia evaluation and

care in the hospital setting: The need forprotocolization. Otoloryngology, Headand Neck Surgery, 145, 895-898.

Andrews, J.M., Fraser, R.J., Heddle, R,Hebbard, G., & Checklin, H. (2008). Isesophageal dysphagia in the extremeelderly (>80 years) different to dysphagiayounger adults? A clinical motility audit.Diseases of the Esophagus, 21, 656-659.

Bours, G., Speyer, R., Lemmens, J., Limburg,M., & Wit, R. (2009). Bedside screeningtests vs. videofluroscopy or fiberopticendoscopie evaluation of swallowing todetect dysphagia in patients with neuro-logical disorders: Systemic review.Journai of Advanced Nursing, 65, 477-493.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC). (2004). Guidelines for the preven-tion of heaith-care-associated pneumo-nia. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5303a1.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC). (2012). Healthcare-associatedinfections (HAis). Retrieved fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/HAI/burden.htmi

Cichero, J., Heaton, S., & Bassett, L. (2009).Triaging dysphagia: Nurse screening fordysphagia in an acute hospital. Journal

of Clinicai Nursing, 18, 1649-1659.Deutsch, E.S., Hockey, A., Rosenblaum, R., &

Gurman, G.M. (2010). Ventilator-associ-ated pneumonia: Current status andfuture recommendations. Journai ofClinicai Monitoring and Computing,24(2), 161-168.

Eisenstadt, E. (2010). Dysphagia and aspira-tion pneumonia in older adults. Journal ofAmerican Academy of NursePractitioner, 22(1), 17-22.

Harrington, L., Luguire, R., Vish, N., Winter,M., Wilder, C, Houser, B., ... Quin, P(2010). Meta-analysis of fall-risk tools inhospitalized adults. Journal of NursingAdministration, 40(11), 483-488.

Marik, P. (2011). Pulmonary aspiration syn-dromes. Current Opinion in PulmonaryMedicine, 17(3), 148-154.

Metheny, N.A., Clouse, R.E., Chang, Y.H.,Stewart, B. J., Oliver, D.A., & Kollef, M.H.(2006). Tracheobronchial aspiration ofgastric contents in critically ill tube-fedpatients: Frequency, outcomes and riskfactors. Criticai Care Medicine, 34(4),1007-1015.

Mitchell, PH., Ferketich, S., & Jennings, B.M.(1998). Quality health outcomes model.Journai of Nursing Schoiarship, 30(1),43-46.

National Institute of Neurological Discordersand Stroke (NINDS). (2010). NINDSswailowing disorders information page.Retrieved from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/swallowing_disorders

Osborne S., Gardner, G., Franklin, S., Tuohy,E., & Fisher, A. (2006). Using a moni-tored tip sip test to assess risk of aspira-tion in postoperative patients. AQRNJournai, 83(4), 908-927.

Pace, C, & McCullough, GH. (2010). Theassociation between oral microorgan-isms and aspiration pneumonia in theinstitutionalized elderly: Review and rec-ommendations. Dysphagia, 25, 307-322.

Paintal, H., & Kuschner, W. (2007). Aspirationsyndromes: 10 clinical pearls everyphysician should know, internationalJournal of Ciinicai Practice, 61(5), 846-852.

Shigemitsu, H., & Afshar, K. (2007). Aspirationpneumonias: Under-diagnosed andunder-treated. Current Opinion inPulmonary Medicine, 13, 192-198.

Torres, A., & Relio, J. (2010). Update in com-munity-acquired and nosocomial pneu-monia 2009. American Journai ofRespiratory & Critical Care Medicine,181(8), 782-787.

Trapl, M., Enderle, P, Nowotny, M.,Teuschl, Y,Matz, K., Dachenhausen, A., & Brainin,M. (2007). Dysphagia bedside screeningfor acute stroke patients: The GuggingSwallowing Screen. Stroke Journai of theAmerican Heart Association, 3S(11),2948-2952.

Yokoe, D., Mermel, L., Anderson, D., Arias, K.,Burstin, H., Calfee, D., & Classen, D.(2008). A compendium of strategies toprevent healthcare-associated infectionsin acute care hospitals. Infection Controland Hospital Epidemiology 29, S12-S21.

Case Studycontinued from page 302

Franklin, C, & Mathew, J. (1994). Developingstrategies to prevent in hospital cardiacarrest: Analyzing responses of physiciansand nurses in the hours before the event.Critical Care Medicine, 22(2), 244-247.

Gearing, P, OIney, C, Davis, K., Lozano, D.,Smith, L., & Friedman, B. (2006).Enhancing patient safety through elec-tronic medical record documentation ofvital signs. Journai of Healthcareinformation Management, 20(4), 40-45.

Halvorsen, L., Garolis, S., Wallace-Scroggs, A.,Stenstrom, J., & Maunder, R. (2007).Building a rapid response team. AACNAdvanced Criticai Care, 18(2), 129-140.

Johannes, C.B., Woods, J., Crawford, S.,Cochran, H., Tran, D, & Schuth, B. (2000).Electronic versus paper instruments fordaily data collection. Annuais ofEpidemioiogy 10, 449-483.

Merck & Co., Inc. (2007). Precautions andadverse reactions: Blood transfusion. TheMerck Manuai. Retrieved from http://www.merck.com/mmhe/print/sec14/ch171/ch171e.htmi

Naeem, N., & Montenegro, H. (2005). Beyondthe intensive care unit: A review of inter-ventions aimed at anticipating and pre-venting in-hospital cardiopulmonaryarrest. Resuscitation, 67(1), 13-23.

Porter-O'Grady, T (2003). A different age forleadership. Part 1. Journal of NursingAdministration, 33(2), 105-110.

Roukema, J., Los, R., Bleeker, S., VanGinneken, A., & Moll, H. (2006). Paperversus computer: Feasibility of an elec-tronic medical record in general pedi-atrics. Pediatrics, 117, 15-21.

World Health Organization. (2005). WoridAiliance for Patient Safety. Retrieved fromhttp://www.who.int/patientsafety/en/brochure_final.pdf

MEDSURGSubject and Author

Indices Available

MEDSURG Nursing Subjectand Author Indicesfrom 1999 to 2011are available on thejournal's web site:

www.medsurgnursing.net

308 September-October 2012 • Vol. 21/No. S M E D S U R G

Copyright of MEDSURG Nursing is the property of Jannetti Publications, Inc. and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.