Abstract
The two currently available closed suction systems (CSS) were compared to determine if there was a difference in performance relative to the incidence of hospital acquired infection or pneumonia. We undertook a prospective randomised study of which a pilot group (n=73) was analysed. Patients were assigned to one of two groups. Group A (n=38) was suctioned using 'Trach Care' CSS (Ballard) and Group B (n=35) was suctioned using 'Stericath' CSS (Portex).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
