HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Chatwin, M. Articles by Simonds, A. K. PubMed Articles by Chatwin, M. Articles by Simonds, A. K.

Analysis of emergency helpline support for home ventilator dependent patients: risk management and workload

Clinical and Academic Dept of Sleep and Breathing, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

CORRESPONDENCE: Michelle Chatwin, Clinical and Academic Dept of Sleep and Breathing, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

From a total of 1211 adult & paediatric patients receiving home ventilation (HV) supervised by Royal Brompton Hospital between 1/1/06 and 30/6/06 the respiratory support team received an average of 528 daytime calls/month and 14/month out of hours calls to a telephone helpline.

Diagnoses included: neuromuscular disease, chest wall disease, COPD, obesity hypoventilation and non-COPD lung disease. 99% received non-invasive ventilation, 1% tracheostomy ventilation. 149 required 2 ventilators for near 24 hour ventilator dependency, the remainder were classified as 1 (17%) 2 (33%) & 3 (50%) night dependency as were able to breathe spontaneously for this period. 50% used bilevel positive pressure ventilators, 48% inspiratory pressure ventilators and 2% volume ventilators. In 188 calls a home visit was carried out because of ventilator or associated equipment-related problems. Despite regular equipment servicing programme, in 188 patients there was a technical problem with the equipment which was solved in the patient's home in 64% or required replacement / parts in 22%. Of the 25 calls in which no fault was found, 13 patients were unwell at home or required hospital admission, 2 patients died within 1 month of identification of no fault. No patient was admitted as a result of technical failure of equipment.

Conclusion: There is a significant workload associated with supporting HV patients. Patients / carers all received standard competency training before discharge but other calls may be reduced by a more flexible problem-solving approach. Importantly, reports in which no technical fault is found may indicate deteriorating health in the patient and require close follow-up.