Objective To explore the type and frequency of oral care practice in intensive care units (ICUs) in Mainland China, and to provide evidence and suggestions for improving oral care practice. Methods Three survey methods, including mailing questionnaires to ICUs of Grade 3A hospitals, consulting experts in this field and visiting accessible ICUs, were used to survey current oral care practice in Mainland China. Results A total of 184 questionnaires were given to the subjects, of which 79 effective ones were collected, and the response rate was 42.93%. All 79 respondents considered oral care very unimportant, and 98.7% of the ICUs performed oral care in different ways. Currently, the cotton ball wipe-off method was the most frequently used for oral care (62.5%), with an average (9.1± 5.1) min per time, twice or three times daily. The mouthwashes often used were saline (76.1%), solutions containing sodium bicarbonate (22.8%), furacilin (13.9%), and hydrogen dioxide (13.9%). Conclusion The oral care practice for the critically-ill patients in ICUs of China is unsatisfactory, although it is perceived as an important item in nursing care. More evidence–based training should be given and it is necessary to establish a national oral care guideline for critically-ill patients.
Objective To assess the evidence of Cochrane systematic reviews relating to oral hygiene care. Methods Issue 3, 2008 of The Cochrane Library was searched for systematic reviews relating to oral hygiene care. Results Four systematic reviews with the forty-five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The methods of forty-five studies were of lower quality with high risk of various biases. Conclusion There is insufficient evidence to support oral hygiene care. The overall quality of RCTs about oral hygiene care is generally low. Analysis of the included trials shows some trials have no clear description of randomization methods, allocation concealment, sample size calculation, and intention-to-treat analysis. To improve the quality of reporting of RCTs, Clinical Trial Registration and Revised consolidated standards of reporting trial (CONSORT) statement should be introduced as guidelines into the trial design.
ObjectiveTo observe the effect of compound chlorhexidine gargle wash care for patients after radical surgery of tongue cancer. MethodsBetween January 2013 and March 2014, 40 patients with tongue cancer who underwent radical surgery without radiation therapy or chemotherapy before operation were selected and randomly divided into compound chlorhexidine giuconatie gargle solution group (intervention group, n=19) and traditional oral care group (control group, n=21). Then we compared the two groups in terms of bacterial colony number, oral cavity cleanness, incidence rate of bad breath and oral ulcer. ResultsBefore intervention, there was no significant diTherences between the two groups in the number of bacterial colony, oral cavity cleanness or oral odor (P>0.05). After treatment, the bacterial colony number and incidence of oral ulcer in the intervenient group were significantly lower, and oral odor was slighter than that of the control group (P<0.05). Oral cavity cleanness between the two groups was not significantly different (P>0.05). ConclusionCompound chlorhexidine gargle wash care for patients after radical surgery of tongue cancer was better than the traditional treatment in terms of bacterial colony number, incidence rate of bad breath and oral ulcer. It is worth clinical popularizing.