Effect of the Ventilator Care Bundle Occurrence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia among Pediatrics

Effect of the Ventilator Care Bundle Occurrence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia among Pediatrics | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effect of the Ventilator Care Bundle Occurrence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia among Pediatrics Hanaa Diab Khalfallah1, Nahed Alquwez2, Marwa Abd Elkreem Ibrahim3 This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5010435/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: In pediatric intensive care units (ICUs), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most prevalent infections linked to healthcare. VAP affects 10% of children on mechanical ventilation and is linked to severe morbidity and mortality. Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of the ventilator care bundle (VCB) on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among pediatric patients. Design: A pre posttest quasi experimental research design was utilized in the present study. Setting: Thisstudy was conducted in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) at Cairo University Specialized Pediatric Hospital (CUSPH). Sample: A convenience sample of 30 nurses and a purposive sample of 60 ventilated children in the PICU participated in the present study. Children were divided into two equal groups: 30 as a control group and 30 as a study group. Nurses were the same for the study and control groups. Tools: Data collection was performed through 1) structured interview sheet, 2) the Nurses' Knowledge Assessment Questionnaire (pre-posttest), 3) the Ventilator bundle checklist, and 4) the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Scale (CPIS). Results: More than two-fifths of the children on MV participated in the present study, and half of the children in the control group were aged 1 year to less than 3 years. Less than two-thirds of the studied children and more than half of the control group were females. Two-fifths and half the order of the children in both groups were ranked as the second and third children, respectively, within the family, while more than one-third of the children in both groups complained of shock. More than one-quarter of the children in both groups complained of disturbance consciousness. There were statistically significant differences detected between the total mean scores of nurses' knowledge and practice before/after the use of the ventilator care bundle (P < 0.01). There was a statistically significant difference between the total mean score on the CPIS between the study group and the control group (t= - 3.692, p= .001). Conclusion: The study concluded that children who were cared for by nurses receiving VCB sessions were less likely to experience VAP than were those in the control group. Recommendation: Educational programs and in-service training courses for pediatric nurses to increase the quality of ventilator care for children and its benefits for the occurrence of VAP are essential. Pediatrics Ventilator- associated pneumonia Ventilator Care Bundle Pediatric Nurses Children. Introduction The term "ventilator-associated pneumonia" (VAP) refers to pneumonia that develops 48–72 hours after endotracheal intubation or later. It is distinguished by the presence of a new or developing infiltrate, systemic infection symptoms, alterations in the characteristics of the sputum, and the identification of the causative agent. Approximately 50% of all cases of hospital-acquired pneumonia are caused by VAP. Approximately 9–27% of children on mechanical ventilation are thought to experience VAP (Kalanuria, Zai & Mirski, 2019). According to Vijay et al. (2019), despite advancements in aseptic procedures, antibiotic therapy, and supportive care, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a significant cause of hospital-acquired infections. According to Alsodaa et al. (2022), VAP affects 17% of hospitalized newborns and children globally, posing a serious health risk. According to Kumar (2019), there are numerous host-related factors that contribute to the incidence of VAP. Although the reported incidence of VAP is extremely high (38.4%), it is inappropriate to compare the incidence of VAP across centers unless there is consistency with regard to the study subjects, environmental factors, and infection control policy. According to several published reports, VAP accounts for 18–26% of all hospital-acquired infections in the unit, with a mortality rate of 10–20% as reported by Alsodaa in 2022, elevated rates of mortality and morbidity are linked to VAP, which prolongs hospital stays and drives up health care costs. VAP is the second most common hospital-acquired infection in the PICU, and accounts for 12% of all ventilated patients (Riddick, Hemingway, and Lumsden, 2019). Prolonged use of a ventilator, inadequate stomach protection, and inadequate oral hygiene are risk factors for developing VAP. There was a clinical difference in mortality between VAP patients (83.3%) and non-VAP patients (35.1%) (Alsodaa, et al., 2022). Yankov and Shmiley (2019) posit that pneumonia arises from the spread of pathogens within the lung parenchyma and mucosa. The colonization of the digestive and respiratory systems as well as the microaspiration of contaminated secretions is the two main pathogenic factors of VAP. According to Catherine (2019), the most common way for a patient to contract VAP from pathogens found in the PICU is through oropharyngeal colonization, particularly from contaminated respiratory equipment and healthcare providers' hands. However, pneumonia can result from aspiration of stomach contents into the lungs due to gastroesophageal reflux disease. Therefore, using H2 blocks for mechanically ventilated patients and bloodstream infections also poses a risk for VAP in children. A mean VAP rate of 3.6 cases per 1000 ventilator days in PICUs in the United States has been reported by the Centers for Disease Control. To stop the morbidity and death linked to this illness, there is still a great need for quality improvement programs in many different nations (Rosenthal et al., 2019). These bacteria frequently react well only to TGC. Maintaining good hand hygiene is crucial for reducing the spread of microorganisms and preventing overgrowth and colonization infections in children on ventilators (Mladenov, 2020). Reda et al. (2019) identified a number of risk factors, including genetic syndrome, re-intubation, invasive procedures such as central venous lines and urinary catheter sources for infection transmission, and immunosuppressive conditions or medications. In their 2022 study, Mohammed, Ali, and Refaat examined VAP in pediatric patients at Assiut University Children's Hospital. They found that 76% of patients with crepitation underwent chest auscultation, 24% of patients had wheezing, and 64% of patients had leukocytosis. The idea of a "bundle" of care makes it easier to implement evidence-based medicine and best practices. A bundle is a methodical approach to enhancing patient outcomes and care processes (Montasser, 2019). Consequently, using a pediatric ventilator bundle in conjunction with an evidence-based, safe, multidisciplinary approach is thought to be a practical way to improve clinical and patient outcomes (Alcan et al., 2020). VAP has remained a significant burden in the PICU despite improvement initiatives that include the adoption of VAP prevention measures, active surveillance, and early detection and the subsequent decline in VAP rates. The hospital administration saw this as a turning point in terms of quality indicators, necessitating a significant investment in patient safety and quality programs. According to Khan, Al-Dorzi, and Al-Attas (2020), hospital administration should implement a ventilator care bundle for VAP prevention and for lowering the incidence of VAP in the PICU. A bundle concept for the prevention of VAP was created by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in Cambridge in 2006. The hospital consists of four parts: daily sedation-vacation, prophylactic treatment for deep vein thrombosis, prophylactic treatment for peptic ulcer disease, and head of bed elevation. A hand hygiene campaign and an oral care protocol were two additional interventions that were probably complementary to the ventilator bundle. The ventilator day-by-day rate decreased from 2.66 to zero with these interventions. The use of bundled care, education, and performance metrics to track the occurrence of infection or surveillance are crucial components in the prevention of VAP in the pediatric population. Nursing education is fundamental for understanding "incidence, risk factors, and prevention protocols" and serves as the cornerstone for interprofessional VAP management. The incidence of VAP can be reduced, and interventions such as hand hygiene, bundled care participation, and staff member communication about infection can be improved through education for nurses and other PICU workers (Gupta, Kapil & Kabra, 2020). Significance of the study According to Mostafa, Rafay, and Adly (2020), the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was 563 per 1000 children. Prolonged hospital stays and long-term disability can be indicative of the healthcare burden associated with VAP. The high prevalence of VAP among mechanically ventilated children in the PICU is closely linked to inadequate training and practice. According to Latef, Kamel, and Abdallah (2022), the incidence of VAP was 22.3 per 100 children in the study, and the incidence was 37.56 per 1000 ventilation days in the PICU. AnwrAk, Saadoon, and Sayed (2023) concluded that VAP is also connected to death and extended hospital and ICU stays. In children in critical care, VAP is the second most common infection among those hospitalized in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units. Care bundles have been widely recommended for patients on mechanical ventilation in clinical practice. To improve children's health outcomes, a care bundle identifies a number of crucial interventions derived from evidence-based guidelines. Few studies on the use of VCB for caring for children have been performed in Egypt. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to assess how a ventilator care bundle for pediatric nurses affects the incidence of pediatric ventilator-associated pneumonia. This ventilator care bundle should help reduce the incidence of VAP in children while also enhancing nurses’ knowledge and practices in child care. Additionally, directions and suggestions should be included in pediatric nursing education, and data should be obtained based on evidence that can advance nursing practice and research in the area of pediatric critical care. Aim of the study The current study aimed to evaluate the effect of the use of a ventilator care bundle for pediatric nurses on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among children. Research Hypotheses 1. Nurses who use the ventilator care bundle will have a higher mean score for knowledge and practice than will those who did not. 2Children who receive care from nurses after receiving the ventilator care bundle will have less exposure to ventilator-associated pneumonia than the control group. Materials and Methods Research Design A pre/posttest quasi experimental research design was utilized to achieve the aim of the current study. A quasi experimental design is a type of experimental design that is very similar to the true experimental design except that one criterion is lost as randomization (Grove & Cipher, 2019). The clinical trial number is not applicable. Setting Nurses and children were selected from the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) on the ground floor at Cairo University Specialized Pediatric Hospital (CUSPH). The intensive care unit receives children of different ages as well as different diagnoses in critical situations that require careful nursing care. Sample All available pediatric nurses who were working in the PICU (30) and agreed to participate in the current study were included regardless of their age, qualification, sex, years of experience and purposive sample of 60 children on mechanical ventilation in the. The first 30 children were considered the control group received routine mechanical ventilator care in the hospital, and the second 30 children were subjected to VCB performed by nurses. Inclusion criteria All the children were admitted to the PICU and intubated within 24 hours. Children up to 5 years. Exclusion criteria Children diagnosed with pneumonia at the time of admission Children re-intubation. Children complain of immune diseases such as rheumatoid disease and DM or receive immune drugs. Ethical considerations Primary approval was obtained from the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Nursing at Cairo University. All nurses and caregivers of children provided written consent and verbal explanations about the nature of the study, voluntary participation, what study involvement would entail, anonymity and confidentiality issues, and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any effect on their child’s care. For ethical reasons, data were collected first from children in the control group and then from those in the study group. Final approval was obtained from the scientific research ethical committee of the faculty of nursing at Cairo University FWA00026458. Data collection tools The required tools were developed after reviewing the related literature and will be completed by the researcher: 1. Structured Interview Sheet : This tool was developed by the researchers after reviewing the related literature. It includes 20 items classified under three parts: Part I: This part included six (6) items about the characteristics of the children, such as age, diagnosis, sex, rank, place of residence, and reason for putting the child on MV. Part II included seven items related to the child's medical history and present history, such as previous illness, previous diagnosis, previous admission to the PICU, cause of admission, duration of PICU stay, symptoms on admission, and diagnostic evaluation. Part III: This part included seven items related to the personal and professional data of the pediatric nurses, such as age, sex, qualification, years of experience, training courses in the PICU and MV, and frequency of training courses. 2 . Nurses' Knowledge Assessment Questionnaire (pre/posttest): This questionnaire included twenty questions developed by the researchers to assess pediatric nurses’ knowledge about mechanical ventilation, such as the assessment of MV, which includes 6 questions; the care of a child on MV, which includes 9 questions; the weaning of MV, which includes 3 questions; and the medication, which includes 2 questions. Scoring system : For nurses’ knowledge each correct and complete response was given a “2” score, an incomplete response was given a “1” score and the wrong response were given a value of zero. The total score was 40, and the data were converted to 100% and then categorized as follows: Excellent (85% to 100%). Very good (75% to < 85%). Good (65% to < 75%). Pass (60% to <65%). 3. Ventilator bundle checklist: This tool was adopted based on the guidelines of the Institute of Health Care Improvement by Resaret et al. (2005) to assess the of 8 items for ventilator care bundle practices. The key components of the ventilator care bundle checklist are as follows: washing hands, care of the ventilator machine, elevation of the head of the bed 30 degrees, mouth care with normal saline 9% or distilled water, daily sedation interruption, assessment of readiness to extubation, peptic ulcer disease prophylaxis and deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis. Scoring system : Regarding nurses’ practices (ventilator bundle checklist) each item was scored as follows: complete/correct practice took a “2” score, incomplete/incorrect took a “1” score, and not done/missed took a “0” score. The total score was 16, and the total score was converted to 100%. The patients were subsequently categorized as follows: A total score less than 75% which is less than 12 was considered an unsatisfactory level of practice. A total score of 75%, which was 12 or more, was considered to indicate a satisfactory level of practice. 4. Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS): This score was adopted from Pugin, Auckenthaler & Mili (1991). It has been proposed for the diagnosis and management of VAP based on 6 clinical assessments, each worth 0–2 points, including fever, leukocyte count, quantity and purulence of tracheal secretions, oxygenation, type of radiographic abnormality, and results of sputum culture. Total scores from 0 to 6 points indicated that pneumonia was less likely, a score from 7 to 12 indicated that pneumonia was more likely, and the reliability of the CPIS was 96%. CPIS Score 1- Patient temperature 1. ≥36.5 degrees C and ≤38.4 degrees C 0 points 2. ≥38.5 degrees C and ≤38.9 degrees C 1 point 3. ≥39 degrees C ≤36 degrees C 2points 2- Leukocyte count 1. ≥4,000/mm -3 and ≤11,000/mm -3 0 points 2. 11,000/mm -3 1 point 3. 11,000/mm -3 2points 3- Tracheal secretions (summed over 24 hours) 1. Rare 0 points 2. Abundant 1 point 3. Abundant+ purulent 2 points 4- PaO2(mmHg)/FIO2 1. >240 or ARDS present 0 points 2. ≤240 or no evidence of ARDS 2points 5- Chest X-ray 1. No infiltrate 0 points 2. Diffuse 1 point 3. Localized 2 points 6- Microbiology (culture growth from tracheal aspirate ) 1. Negative 0 points 2. Positive 2points CPIS Interpretation 0 to 6 points = Pneumonia less likely 7 to 12 points = Pneumonia more likely Validity and Reliability: The data collection tools used in the study were given to a group of 5 experts in the field of pediatric intensive care and pediatric nursing to test the content validity of the tools, and modifications were made by the experts to increase tool validation. The reliability of the tools was assessed to confirm tool consistency, for which the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80. Procedure Before conducting the study, official permission was obtained from the directors of CUSPH, and permission from the head of the PICU was also obtained after the nature of the study was explained. Informed consent was obtained from the caregivers of children in both the study and control groups. Clear and simple explanations about the aim and nature of the study were given by the researchers to the nurses, and written consent was obtained from those who agreed to participate in the study. Then, the caregivers and nurses completed a structured interview sheet (tool 1). A pretest was performed to assess nurses’ level of knowledge about care for children and MV. Additionally, nurses were observed to assess their level of practice using an observational checklist about the use of a ventilator care bundle for nurses on an individual basis depending on working time with a child. Data from the nurses and children in the control group were collected before the study group of children and the control groups were receiving routine ventilator care in the PICU. The researchers will then present two sessions. The first session will consist of a theoretical section about the knowledge of MV and child care on MV. Pediatric nurses were provided this information on an individual basis depending on the work schedule in the waiting room in the PICU. The session lasted approximately 30-45 minutes according to the data provided during the experiment, and after one week, the posttest was administered to assess the knowledge of the nurses (tool 2). The second session, containing the practical part of the ventilator care bundle, was subsequently conducted for the nurses through demonstration and re-demonstration of the doll to master the required skills. The session lasted approximately 40-60 minutes, and the ventilator care bundle was applied twice daily for one week for children in the PICU. The researchers will evaluate the nurses’ performance regarding the use of the ventilator care bundle for children in the study group through an observational checklist administered twice, once on the third day and once on the sixth day (tool 3). The tool (4) was completed by the researchers for children in the study one week after the implementation of ventilator care bundle intubation to assess the occurrence of VAP. The data were collected over twelve months from July 2022 to July 2023. Statistical analysis The collected data were tabulated and summarized. The data were computerized and analyze using the appropriate descriptive frequency and percentages are expressed as qualitative information. The parametric chi-square test was used to compare qualitative variables. For comparisons of means, paired-sample t tests and inferential statistical tests were used to test the study hypotheses. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS Table (1) reveals that two thirds (43.3%) of the children on MV participated in the present study, and 50% of the children in the control group were aged 1 year to less than 3 years. The mean age was 2.5±1.32 years for children in the study group and 2.1±1.31 years for those in the control group. Less than two thirds (63.3%) of the studied children and more than half (53.3%) of the control group were females. The same table shows that 40% and 50%, in order of children in both groups, were ranked as the second and third children within the family, respectively. It was found that 70% and 56.7%, respectively, of the children in the study and control groups lived in urban areas. The same table indicates that there was a statistically significant difference between children in both the study and control groups regarding sex and place of residence (X 2 = 7.33., p=.010; X 2 = 9.36, p= .006, respectively). Table 2 clearly shows that 36.7% and 33.3%, respectively, of the children in both groups complained of shock, while more than one quarter (23.3%) and 26.7% of the children in both groups were diagnosed with respiratory distress syndrome. Only 20% of the children in the study group complained of accidents and postoperative complications. One-third (33.3%) of the children in the control group were diagnosed with accidents. Similarly, more than one-third of the children in the study group had respiratory and non-respiratory causes of MV, while half (50%) of the children in the control group had non-respiratory causes of MV, and the majority of the children in both groups did not suffer from other diseases. Ten percent of the children in the study group and 16.7% of those in the control group had been admitted to the PICU before admission, and two-thirds of the children in the study group complained of pneumonia as a reason for their admission to the PICU, while less than two-thirds of those in the control group were suffering from dehydration. Table 3 clearly shows that more than two-fifths (46.3%) of the children in the study group and half (50%) of those in the control group had lived in the PICU for three weeks. With regard to symptoms on admission to the PICU, 30% and 26.7% of the children in both groups complained of disturbance consciousness, respectively, while 23.3% and 33.3%, respectively, in both groups, had respiratory distress. More than two-thirds (70%) of the children in the study group were diagnosed with both radiological images and ABGs, whereas more than half (53.3%) of the children in the control group were diagnosed with these conditions. Table (4) shows that more than half of the nurses ranged in age from 20 to less than 30 years, with a mean age of 6.23 ±25.66 years, and more than half of them were females. Regarding nurses’ qualifications, 46.7% of them graduated from the Technical Institute of Nursing. Concerning nurses’ years of experience in the PICU, more than half (53.3%) of the nurses had less than 5 years of experience. More than half (56.7%) of the nurses attended training courses in pediatric intensive care, and only one-third (33.3%) of them attended mechanical ventilator training courses. Table 5 shows that highly significant differences were detected between the total mean scores of nurses' knowledge (assessment of MV, care of a child on MV, weaning of MV, and medications) for the pre- and post-treatments at P < 0.01. Table (6) illustrates that 6.7% of the nurses had an excellent level of knowledge regarding MV before the implementation of the ventilator care bundle, and this percentage increased to 53.3% after receiving the ventilator care bundle. Twenty percent of them had a poor level of knowledge before receiving the ventilator care bundle compared to no one after receiving the ventilator care bundle. A statistically significant difference was detected between nurses’ level of knowledge before and after the implementation of the ventilator care bundle ( X 2 = 21.46, p≤ 0.01). Table 7 highlights that 80% and 73.3%, respectively, of the nurses performed complete hand washing before and after contact with mechanical ventilation in both readings after VCB implementation, whereas more than one quarter of the nurses performed incomplete hand washing in the 2nd reading. A total of 76.7% and 70%, respectively, of the nurses performed complete care of the ventilator machine in both readings after the implementation of VCB, whereas more than one quarter of the nurses performed incomplete care in the 2nd reading. With regard to children nursed in a semi recumbent position and daily sedation, more than three-quarters of the nurses completed the VCB in the 1 st reading, and the majority of them did so in the 2 nd reading after the implementation of VCB, while 10% and 6.7%, respectively, did not. The majority of the nurses performed regular oral hygiene maintenance every 4 hours and daily assessments of readiness to extubate during the 1 st reading; 80% and 93.3%, respectively, completed a 2 nd reading after the implementation of VCB, and less than one-quarter of those incomplete performed both readings. The same table shows that the majority of nurses who completed both readings performed care for peptic ulcer disease prophylaxis,76.7% and 86.7% of the nurses who completed both readings performed deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, and less than one-quarter of those incomplete performed both readings. There were statistically significant differences in two readings between the nurses who used the ventilator care bundle checklist (x 2 =3.91, p=. 057, x 2 = 7.74 , p=. 001, x 2 = 3.70, p=. 054, x 2 = 3.81 , p= .051 in order) at p < 0.05 and < 0.01. Table 8 shows that the mean total score for nurses’ preference after the ventilator care bundle was 1.93 ± .253 in the first reading and 1.83 ± .379 in the second reading. There was a statistically significant difference between the total mean score of nurses’ practices in the first and second readings (p= <0.01). Concerning the occurrence of clinical pulmonary infection among children in the study and control groups, Table (9) clearly shows that more than two-fifths of the children in the study group had a normal temperature or fever, and there were rare tracheal secretions; moreover, 56.7% of the children in the control group had hyperpyrexia or hypothermia. It was found that in 43.3% of the children in the study group, the leukocyte count was normal compared to 40% of the children in the control group who had leucopenia or lymphocytosis. Nearly three-quarters (73.3%) of the participants in the study group did not have evidence of RDS, while less than two-thirds of the children in the control group had RDS. On chest X-ray, 56.7% of the children in the study group had no infiltrate, whereas half of those in the control group had localized signs on X-ray. The majority of children in the study group had negative culture growth, although 63.3% of those in the control group had positive culture growth. The results indicated that there were statistically significant differences between children in both the study and control groups regarding the clinical pulmonary infection score (p<0.5, P<0.01). Table 10 shows that the mean total clinical pulmonary infection scores (CPISs) for the study and control groups were 5.800 ± 1.297 and 7.600 ± 2.044, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the total mean CPIS score in the study group and that in the control group (t= - 3.692, p=. 001). Discussion Concerning the demographic data, it was evident from the results of the present study that two-thirds of the children on MV in the study group and half of the children in the control group were aged 1 year to less than 3 years. The current result contradicts that of Bhattacharya et al. (2023), who confirmed that 37 (36.2%) pediatric patients had VAP, with children aged one to five years being the most frequently affected age group. According to the current study, more than half of the control group and less than two thirds of the studied children were female. These findings contrast with those of Seifu1 et al. (2022), who reported that out of the 361 pediatric patients examined, 197 (54.6%) were boys and 164 (45.4%) were girls. A total of 70% and 56.7% of the children in the study and control groups, respectively, lived in urban areas; more than one-third of the children in both groups complained of shock and more than one-quarter of the children in both groups were diagnosed with respiratory distress syndrome. This explanation aligns with the findings of Dendir et al. (2023), who reported that 165 (41.7%) of the 396 pediatric ICU patients included in the study were from urban areas. They also discovered that 39.2% of young patients admitted to the intensive care unit had acute respiratory distress syndrome. Conversely, in line with the findings of Bacha, Tsegaye, and Tuli, based on research conducted in India, septic shock (27.14%), respiratory disorders (20.9%), and cardiovascular illness (41.1%) were the most common causes of PICU. It was evident in the results of the present study that two-thirds of the children in the study group complained of pneumonia as a reason for the child’s admission to the PICU, whereas less than two-thirds of those in the control group suffered from dehydration. These results contrast with those of Arafah, Murni, and Rusmawatiningtyas (2020), who concluded that neurological diseases, which were statistically significant independent predictors of prolonged PICU stays, affected 26.7% of children. The current study indicated that more than two-fifths of the children in the study group and half of those in the control group had lived in the PICU for three weeks. Fayed and AlYousef (2022) provided support for this finding, indicating that respiratory diseases accounted for the majority of long-stay patients (51.53%), with comorbidities and complications occurring during the stay (p < 0.001). Concerning the child's symptoms on admission to the PICU, nearly one-quarter and one-third of them in the two groups, respectively, experienced respiratory distress. This was supported by the findings of Nilofer, Sunil, and Punit (2017), who reported that respiratory failure was the most common indication 20.83%. Concerning the diagnostic evaluation of the children, it was evident from the results of the present study that more than two-thirds of the children in the study group were diagnosed with both radiological images and ABGs, while more than half of those in the control group were diagnosed with ABGs. Similarly, Antalova et al. (2022) reported that, in the early stages of pneumonia development, there may be only a few signs of inflammation on X-ray. The authors recommended repeating the test over time in patients with a high clinical suspicion and other criteria for worsening of gas exchange. The current study revealed that more than half of the nurses (with a mean age of 6.23 ± 25.66 years) were aged > 20 to < 30 years, and more than half of them were females. This result was similar to that of Abou Zed & Mohammed (2019), who reported that the mean age of the participants, which accounted for 74.3% of the sample, was 26.63 ± 4.25 years, with a range of 20 to less than 30 years. Additionally, these findings support the findings of Pena et al. (2021), who reported that 80% of all PICU working nurses were female. Regarding nurses’ qualifications, the study results showed that more than two-fifths of them had graduated from the Technical Institute of Nursing and that more than half of the nurses had less than 5 years of experience. The current results agreed with the findings of El-Sayed et al. (2023) that more than 53.3% of nurses hold degrees from technical nursing institutes. Furthermore, these findings align with the findings of Ibrahim, Al-Rafay, and Tantawi (2021), who evaluated the effect of a bundled approach training program on pediatric and neonatal nurses in terms of preventing device-related infections in the PICU and NICU of Ain Shams University Specialist Hospital. Their findings showed that 61.4% of nurses had worked in the PICU and NICU for a minimum of 10 years. According to the results of the present study, highly significant differences were detected between the total mean scores of nurses’ knowledge of the use of the ventilator care bundle pre- and post-intervention (P < 0.01). These findings supported Thompson's (2020) assertion that nurses knew more about VAP prevention after receiving instruction than they did prior to instruction (P < 0.05). Additionally, in practically every knowledge domain, there were highly statistically significant differences between the pre- and posttest total knowledge scores. Concerning nurses’ knowledge, 6.7% of the nurses had an excellent level of knowledge regarding MV before the implementation of the ventilator care bundle, and this percentage increased to more than half after receiving the ventilator care bundle. These results were in line with those of Ahmed & Abosamra (2022), who investigated pediatric critical care nurses' knowledge of evidence-based recommendations for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and found that 65.3% of the study sample knew insufficiently about these guidelines. From the researcher's view, this is because there is no written protocol regarding evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of VAP in units, and nurses are not aware of the importance of such interventions and their implementation. In relation to nurses' level of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, the results of this study revealed that more than two-thirds A total of 65.3% of the studied samples had unsatisfactory levels of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. This may be due to the lack of a written protocol regarding evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of VAP in both units. This lack of knowledge is considered an enormous barrier to implementation of evidence-based guidelines for VAP prevention, as resources are available at times but Nurses are not aware of the importance of such interventions and their implementation. This result was supported by the results of Gomes (2010), who reported that the majority of participants had adequate knowledge of evidence-based guidelines for prevention of VAP. In relation to nurses' level of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, the results of this study revealed that more than two-thirds A total of 65.3% of the studied samples had unsatisfactory levels of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. This may be due to the lack of a written protocol regarding evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of VAP in both units. This lack of knowledge is considered an enormous barrier to implementation of evidence-based guidelines for VAP prevention, as resources are available at times but Nurses are not aware of the importance of such interventions and their implementation. This result was supported by the results of Gomes (2010), who reported that the majority of participants had adequate knowledge of evidence-based guidelines for prevention of VAP. In relation to nurses' level of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, the results of this study revealed that more than two-thirds A total of 65.3% of the studied samples had unsatisfactory levels of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. This may be due to the lack of a written protocol regarding evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of VAP in both units. This lack of knowledge is considered an enormous barrier to implementation of evidence-based guidelines for VAP prevention, as resources are available at times but Nurses are not aware of the importance of such interventions and their implementation. This result was supported by the results of Gomes (2010), who reported that the majority of participants had adequate knowledge of evidence-based guidelines for prevention of VAP The study's results indicated that twenty percent of them had a poor level of knowledge before receiving a ventilator care bundle compared to no one after receiving the ventilator care bundle. Gerida, El-Sheikh, and AbdElraouf (2022) provided support for this finding. They examined nurses' performance and knowledge in relation to infection prevention measures for pneumonia associated with ventilators. They discovered that 90% and 96.7% of the nurses in their study had low total knowledge scores and required training to improve their knowledge. On the other hand, a statistically significant difference was detected in nurses’ level of knowledge before and after the implementation of the ventilator care bundle p = < 0.01. These findings were consistent with those of Thompson (2020), who examined a sample consisting of 75 nurses and reported that the nursing staff had a lower level of instruction before teaching than after teaching p < 0.001. The current study indicated that the majority and more than two-thirds of nurses performed hand washing before and after contact with mechanical ventilation, respectively, in both readings after the implementation of VCB. This finding is consistent with that of Mahfoz, El Sayed, and Ahmed (2022), who discovered statistically significant variations in the hand-washing practices of nurses before and after program implementation. After the instructions were implemented, all the nurses completed their hand washing. According to the results of the present study, more than three-quarters and more than two-thirds of the nurses performed complete care of the ventilator machine after the VCB was implemented. This result is congruent with the findings of Abusalah (2019), who reported that 67.28% of the nurses involved in the study completed the overall observation checklist with reference to hand washing as a V preventive measure in PICUs. The results of the current study revealed that, for children nursed in a semi recumbent position, the majority of them performed well on the 2nd reading after the implementation of VAP. These results were supported by those of El-Sayed, Khalil, and EL-kazaz (2023), who corroborated these findings by reporting that 83% and 88.8%, respectively, of nurses had a satisfactory level of post program knowledge regarding ventilator equipment care and position, and the majority of them had a satisfactory level of follow-up phase knowledge. With respect to oral hygiene, the majority of nurses performed regular oral hygiene maintenance every 4 hours and daily assessment of readiness to extubate in the 1st reading, and the majority and vast majority of them completed regular oral hygiene in the 2nd reading after implementation of VCB; only less than one-quarter of those incomplete oral hygiene was performed in both readings. This result was confirmed by Li et al.'s (2021) discovery that hospital-acquired pneumonia patients' respiratory pathogens are similar to those in their oral cavities. The gums of newborns and infants should be wiped using a small soft toothbrush or a gauze swab soaked in clean water or saline solution, according to guidelines published by the New Zealand Dental Association in 2006. The study's results indicated that there were statistically significant differences in the nurses' compliance with the use of the ventilator care bundle checklist according to the two readings (p < 0.05 and < 0.01). Ultimately, these results align with the findings of Akl et al. (2020) in Egypt, who reported a strong statistically significant relationship between nurses’ practices and pre- and post-application of the VAP care bundle to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (p < 0.01). The results of the present study illustrated that there was a statistically significant difference between the total mean score of nurses’ practices on the first and second readings after the ventilator care bundle p = < 0.01. This finding is consistent with the findings of Abou Zed and Mohammed (2019), who reported statistically significant differences in pre and post-intervention mean scores for nurses' performance and knowledge in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in newborns. There were statistically significant differences between the clinical pulmonary infection scores of the children in both the study and control groups (p < 0.5, P < 0.01). This explanation was in line with that of Basyigit (2020), who reported a difference in the pre-diagnosed CPIS levels of VAP- positive patients and VAP-negative patients, and significant differences were found between the 2nd-day and 5th-day CPISs (p < 0.01). Clearly, the study results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the total mean score on the CPIS between the study group and the control group (p < .001).These findings contradict those of Fang, Mao, Jiang, and Yin (2022), who reported that the total effective rate (95.45%) was greater in the most comprehensive group (p < 0.05). Conclusion According to the findings of the present study, there were highly significant differences between the study group of nurses who received ventilator care bundles and those who did not in terms of their overall mean scores for VCB knowledge and practices for children on MV. Additionally, compared to those in the control group, children under the care of nurses receiving VCB sessions were less likely to experience VAP. The study's findings also showed that, in terms of the clinical pulmonary infection score, there were statistically significant differences between the children in the study and control groups. Declarations - Availability of data and materials. The data that supported the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions. - Competing interests. We declare that we have no significant competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the performance or presentation of the work described in this manuscript. - Funding No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript or for conducting this study. -Authors' contributions. A, B&C researchers conceived the study; A.C developed the theoretical framework of the research; A&C researchers aided in the analysis; and B&C supervised the project. All the authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript. Researchers A and B analyze the data and wrote the manuscript; however, A&C researchers contributed to the final version and supervised the project. Researchers A, B, and C wrote the manuscript with input from all the authors for overall direction and planning. All the researchers contributed to the design and implementation of the research, the analysis of the results, and the writing of the manuscript. - Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Shaqra University for supporting this work. Additionally, the researchers would like to thank all the teams in the pediatric intensive care unit at Cairo University Specialized Pediatric Hospital for their cooperation in working. Recommendations Based on the results of the current study, the following is recommended: - Integration of the ventilator care bundle for nurses in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is essential. -Educational programs and in-service training courses for pediatric nurses to increase the quality of ventilator care for children and its benefits for the occurrence of VAP. - A longitudinal study is necessary to monitor the relapse of ventilator-associated pneumonia and complications of VAP among children on MV. Reference Alcan AO, van Giersbergen MY, Dincarslan G, Hepcivici Z, Kaya E &Uyar M. (2020). Effect of patient position on endotracheal cuff pressure in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Australian Critical Care. Vol. 30:267–72. Alsodaa, M. Al-Shahatb, M. Redac, Sh. Alsawahc, A. Abboudd, M &Elgendye, A. (2022) Implementation of ventilator bundle for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in pediatric intensive care unit . Journal of Medicine in Scientific Research. Volume 2. Issue 4 IP: 10.232.74.23 http://www.jmsr.eg.net AnwrAk, Saadoon and Sayed. (2023).Effectiveness of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia Care Bundle on thePediatric Critical Care Nurses Knowledge, Practice and Critically ill Neonates. IOSR Journal of Nursing and Health Science (IOSR-JNHS)e-ISSN: 2320–1959.p- ISSN: 2320–1940 Volume 9, Issue 3 Ser. XII (May - June 2020), PP 57-68. DOI: 10.9790/1959-0903125768 Catherine, H. (2019). Preventing pediatric ventilator-associated pneumonia. Nursing Critical Care: Volume 10 - Issue 6 - p 42-47doi: 10. 1097/01. CCN. 0000 47 28 45. 62808 Grove, S. & Cipher, D. (2019). Statistics of Nursing Research: A Workbook for Evidence- based Practice. (4 th ed). Elsevier, London. Pp 95-101. Gupta A, Kapil A, Kabra, S. (2020). Assessing the impact of an educational intervention on ventilator-associated pneumonia in a pediatric critical care unit. Am J Infect Control . 2018;42(2):111–115. Kalanuria, A.Zai,W&Mirski, M. (2019). Ventilator-associated pneumonia in the ICU. Critical Care volume 18, https://ccforum.biome dcentral.com/ Khan, R. Al-Dorzi, H & Al-Attas, K. (2020). The impact of implementing multifaceted interventions on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. American Journal of Infection Control .Vol 44. publication at: https://www.researchgate.eg/publication/296475190 Kumar, V. (2019). Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Children: Current Status and Future Prospects. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics. Vol 85(10):830–831 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-018-2783 Latefa , D. Kamelb, L &AbdAllah, A. (2022). Ventilator-associated pneumonia:incidence and risk factors in the pediatric intensive care unit . Pp 68-75Vol 32. Issue 2http://www.ajp.eg.net. IP: 213.212.232.132. Mladenov, B. (2020).Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Pediatric ICU Prophylaxis and Treatment. Archives of Pulmonology and Respiratory Medicine ISSN: 2639-362X Volume 3, Issue 1, PP: 25-30 Mohammed, A. Ali, A &Refaat, N. (2022). A descriptive study on the diagnosis and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the neonatal intensive care unit of Assiut University Children’s Hospital . Journal of Current Medical Research and Practice. DOI: 10.4103/JCMRP.JCMRP. Montasser, M. (2019). Decreasing the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia with complete adherence to its prevention bundle. Article 13, Volume 46, Issue 2, Pp 425-432, DOI: 10.12816/0038264. Mostafa, . S. Rafay, S & Adly, R. (2020) Assessment of Health Care Burdens of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Pediatric Intensive Care Units Article 2, Volume 11, Issue 1, Page 12-27 DOI: 10.21608/EJHC.2020.72591. Pugin, J. Auckenthaler, R &Mili, N. (1991): Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia by bacteriologic analysis of bronchoscopic and Non bronchoscopic “blind” broncho -alveolar lavage fluid. Am Rev Respir Dis; 143:1121-9. Reda, Sh. Alsawah, A. Abboud, M. Elgendy, A & Al-shahat, M. (2019). implementation of ventilator bundle for prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia in pediatric intensive care unit. Al-Azhar Journal of Ped. Vol. 22 No. https://azjp .journals.ekb.eg/article_ Resar, R. Pronovost, P.Haraden, C & Simmonds, T. Rainey, T.Nolan, T. (2005). Using a bundle approach to improve ventilator care processes and reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 31:243–248 Riddick, L. Hemingwa, J. & Lumsden, J. (2019). Ventilator associated pneumonia in pediatric intensive care (PICU). pediatric intensive care society. BMJ journals.https://adc.bmj.eg /content/104/ Rosenthal, V.Maki, D. Mehta, Y. Leblebicioglu, H.Memish, Z& Al-Mousa, H. (2019). International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) report, data summary of 43 countries : device-associated module. Am J Infect Control. Vol 42:942-56. Vijay, G. Mandal, A. Sankar, J. Kapil2, A. Lodha, R &Kabra, S. (2019). Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Incidence, Risk Factors and Etiological Agents. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics . Vol 85(10):861–866, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-018-2662-8 Yankov, I &Shmiley, T. (2019) Ventilator- associated pneumonias in children diagnostic criteria, etiology and pathogenesis. Folia Medica. Vol 54(1):5-11. DOI:10.2478/v10153-011-0071-0 Bhattacharya,P. Kumar,A . Ghosh,S and Kumar, S. (2023). Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patients: Microbiological Profile, Risk Factors, and Outcome. Alexander Muacevic and John R Adler. Published online https://doi: 10.7759/cureus.38189 Abou Zed, F., & Mohammed, A. (2019). Impact of nursing guidelines on nurses’ knowledge and performance regarding to prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia in neonates. Journal of Nursing Education and practice, 9 (10), 1-14 Pena, M. Restrepo, L. Arroyave, F. and Brochero,O. (2021). Impact of an Educational Intervention Aimed at Nursing Staff on Oral Hygiene Care on the Incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Adults Ventilated in Intensive Care Unit. Volume 39(3): e06.Nov 8. doi: 10.17533/udea.iee.v39n3e06. Thompson, S. D. (2020). Examining ICU nurses' knowledge of ventilatorassociated events and ventilator-associated pneumonia, published Doctoral thesis, Walden University, USA. El-Sayed, S. Khalil, A. EL-kazaz, R. (2023). Effect of an Educational Program for Nurses about Prevention of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Port Said Scientific Journal of Nursing Vol.10, No. 3, https://pssjn.journals.ekb.eg/article_317321 Mahfoz, F., El Sayed, H., & Ahmed, H. (2022). Effect of design nursing instruction on mechanically ventilated children in pediatric intensive care units. Tanta Scientific Nursing Journal, 26 (3), 28-43 Akl, B., Saadoon, M., Sayed, A. (2020). Effectiveness of ventilator associated pneumonia care bundle on the pediatric critical care nurse’s knowledge, practice and critically ill neonates’ outcome. Journal of Nursing and Health Science, 9(3), 57-68 Gerida, A. El-Sheikh, O. and Abd Elraouf, S. (2022). Nurses' knowledge and Performance regarding Infection Preventive Measures for Ventilators Associated Pneumonia. Mansoura Nursing Journal (MNJ) Vol. 9. No. 2 – 2022 Print ISSN: 2735- 4121. Online ISSN : 2735 – 413X https://mnj.journals.ekb.e.g./article Ibrahim, A. M., Al-Rafay, S. S., &Tantawi, H. R. (2021). Application of Care Bundle Approach for Preventing Device Associated Infections: A Training Program for Pediatric and Neonatal Nurses. Medico Legal Update, 21(1), 1744-1751. Nilofer, B. Sunil, G. Punit, C. (2017). A study of mechanical ventilation in children. International Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics Bhori NS et al. Int J Contemp Pediatr.Nov;4(6):2088-2092. pISSN 2349-3283. DOI: http://dx.doi.org /10.18203/23 49-3291.ijcp20174737 AlKhalifah,R . Fayed, A. AlYousef, S. (2022). Factors influencing the length of stay among patients admitted to a tertiary pediatric intensive care unit in Saudi Arabia. Sec. Pediatric Critical Care. Volume 10. Available at https://doi.org /10.3389/ fped .2022.1093160 Dendir,G.Awoke,N. Alemu,A. Sintayhu,A. Eanga,S. Teshome,M. Zerfu,M. Tila,M. Dessu,B. Efa,A. Gashaw,A. (2023). Factors Associated with the Outcome of a Pediatric Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Unit in Resource-Limited Setup: Cross-Sectional Study. Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics. Volume 14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/PHMT.S389404 Bacha T, Tsegaye N, Tuli W. (2021). Characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated pediatric patients in a tertiary referral hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: cross sectional study. Ethiop J Health Sci ;31:5. Arafah, Y Murni, I. and Rusmawatiningtyas, D. (2020). Predictors of prolonged stay in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatrica Indonesiana 60(1):37-41. P-ISSN 0030-9311; e-ISSN 2338-476X; Vol.60, No.1. p. 37-41; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14238/pi60.1.2020.37-41 Seifu1, A. Eshetu,O. Tafesse,D and Hailu,S. (2022). Admission pattern, treatment outcomes, and associated factors for children admitted to pediatric intensive care unit of Tikur Anbessa specialized hospital: a retrospective crosssectional study. Avaliable at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01556-7 Antalova, N. Klucka, J. Ihova, M. Polá, S. Pokorná, A. Štoura, P. (2022). Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prevention in Pediatric Patients: Narrative Review Children, 9, 1540. Avaliable at: https://doi.org/10.3390/children9101540 Ahmed, G. Abosamra, O. (2022). Knowledge of Pediatric Critical Care Nurses Regarding Evidence Based Guidelines for Prevention of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP). Journal of Education and Practice. Vol.6, No.9. ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) www.iiste.org Thompson, S.D. (2020). Examining ICU nurses' knowledge of ventilator associated events and ventilator-associated pneumonia, published Doctoral thesis, Walden University, USA. Abusalah, A . Abuadwan, A and Shuaib, K. (2019). Practices of nurses toward prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia at pediatric intensive care units-Gaza strip. ISSN: 2457-0400 Volume: 3. Issue: 2. Page N. 22-27. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331716187 Li, D.F. Shi, C.X. Zhao, L. Shi, F.Z. Jiang, M.L. Kang, W.Q. (2021). Prevention of neonatal ventilator associated pneumonia through oral care with the combined use of colostrum and sodium bicarbonate. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. Mar;25(5):2361-2366. Fang, C. Mao, Y. Jiang, M. Yin, W. (2022). Pediatric Critical Illness Score, Clinical Characteristics and Comprehensive Treatment of Children with Severe Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Pneumonia. Sec. Visceral Surgery. Volume 9 https://doi. org/ 10.33 89/ fsurg.2022.897550 Basyigit, S. (2020). Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) as a Screening Tool in Ventilatory Associated Pneumonia (VAP). Volume: 51, Number 2. Studies- Araştırmalar. DOI: 10.5350/SEMB.20170208030528 Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). (2006). Using Care Bundles to Improve Health Care Quality. Avaliable at: https://www.ihi.org/resources/white Tables Tables 1 to 10 are available in the Supplementary Files section Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5010435","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":347796583,"identity":"54aa7668-f6c9-463c-b17d-0ade04696f2a","order_by":0,"name":"Hanaa Diab Khalfallah1","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3821-3517","institution":"Assistant Professor of Pediatric Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Cairo University, Egypt. 1Assistant Professor of Department of Maternity and Child Health Nursing, Shaqra University, College of Nursing, Shaqra University, Saudi Arabia.","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hanaa","middleName":"Diab","lastName":"Khalfallah1","suffix":""},{"id":347796590,"identity":"9ba76d95-3565-4547-ab90-11b5a17272a9","order_by":1,"name":"Nahed Alquwez2","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8954-9061","institution":"2Associated Professor of Department of Nursing Administration and Education, College of Nursing, Shaqra University, Saudi Arabia.","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nahed","middleName":"","lastName":"Alquwez2","suffix":""},{"id":347796679,"identity":"3c634fa2-127f-4acf-9e3f-03c71a21d915","order_by":2,"name":"Marwa Abd Elkreem Ibrahim3","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0069-8108","institution":"Assistant Professor of Pediatric Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Cairo University, Egypt. 3Assistant Professor of Pediatric Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Glala University.","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marwa","middleName":"Abd Elkreem","lastName":"Ibrahim3","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-08-31 20:12:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":true,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5010435/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5010435/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":63944100,"identity":"6592de6f-e639-4c1f-ab26-9c593b119498","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-04 05:31:44","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":567426,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5010435/v1/f1a408b4-369f-4daa-975d-cbaa153127a5.pdf"},{"id":63943373,"identity":"8a7f5cfd-a125-4cd8-8395-27df9810df48","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-04 05:23:44","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":57584,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5010435/v1/34ebf2c46454a5b76b4ba674.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of the Ventilator Care Bundle Occurrence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia among Pediatrics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe term \u0026quot;ventilator-associated pneumonia\u0026quot; (VAP) refers to pneumonia that develops 48\u0026ndash;72 hours after endotracheal intubation or later. It is distinguished by the presence of a new or developing infiltrate, systemic infection symptoms, alterations in the characteristics of the sputum, and the identification of the causative agent. Approximately 50% of all cases of hospital-acquired pneumonia are caused by VAP. Approximately 9\u0026ndash;27% of children on mechanical ventilation are thought to experience VAP (Kalanuria, Zai \u0026amp; Mirski, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Vijay et al. (2019), despite advancements in aseptic procedures, antibiotic therapy, and supportive care, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a significant cause of hospital-acquired infections. According to Alsodaa et al. (2022), VAP affects 17% of hospitalized newborns and children globally, posing a serious health risk.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Kumar (2019), there are numerous host-related factors that contribute to the incidence of VAP. Although the reported incidence of VAP is extremely high (38.4%), it is inappropriate to compare the incidence of VAP across centers unless there is consistency with regard to the study subjects, environmental factors, and infection control policy. According to several published reports, VAP accounts for 18\u0026ndash;26% of all hospital-acquired infections in the unit, with a mortality rate of 10\u0026ndash;20% as reported by Alsodaa in 2022, elevated rates of mortality and morbidity are linked to VAP, which prolongs hospital stays and drives up health care costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVAP is the second most common hospital-acquired infection in the PICU, and accounts for 12% of all ventilated patients (Riddick, Hemingway, and Lumsden, 2019). Prolonged use of a ventilator, inadequate stomach protection, and inadequate oral hygiene are risk factors for developing VAP. There was a clinical difference in mortality between VAP patients (83.3%) and non-VAP patients (35.1%) (Alsodaa, et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYankov and Shmiley (2019) posit that pneumonia arises from the spread of pathogens within the lung parenchyma and mucosa. The colonization of the digestive and respiratory systems as well as the microaspiration of contaminated secretions is the two main pathogenic factors of VAP. According to Catherine (2019), the most common way for a patient to contract VAP from pathogens found in the PICU is through oropharyngeal colonization, particularly from contaminated respiratory equipment and healthcare providers\u0026apos; hands. However, pneumonia can result from aspiration of stomach contents into the lungs due to gastroesophageal reflux disease. Therefore, using H2 blocks for mechanically ventilated patients and bloodstream infections also poses a risk for VAP in children.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA mean VAP rate of 3.6 cases per 1000 ventilator days in PICUs in the United States has been reported by the Centers for Disease Control. To stop the morbidity and death linked to this illness, there is still a great need for quality improvement programs in many different nations (Rosenthal et al., 2019). These bacteria frequently react well only to TGC. Maintaining good hand hygiene is crucial for reducing the spread of microorganisms and preventing overgrowth and colonization infections in children on ventilators (Mladenov, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReda et al. (2019) identified a number of risk factors, including genetic syndrome, re-intubation, invasive procedures such as central venous lines and urinary catheter sources for infection transmission, and immunosuppressive conditions or medications. In their 2022 study, Mohammed, Ali, and Refaat examined VAP in pediatric patients at Assiut University Children\u0026apos;s Hospital. They found that 76% of patients with crepitation underwent chest auscultation, 24% of patients had wheezing, and 64% of patients had leukocytosis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe idea of a \u0026quot;bundle\u0026quot; of care makes it easier to implement evidence-based medicine and best practices. A bundle is a methodical approach to enhancing patient outcomes and care processes (Montasser, 2019). Consequently, using a pediatric ventilator bundle in conjunction with an evidence-based, safe, multidisciplinary approach is thought to be a practical way to improve clinical and patient outcomes (Alcan et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVAP has remained a significant burden in the PICU despite improvement initiatives that include the adoption of VAP prevention measures, active surveillance, and early detection and the subsequent decline in VAP rates. The hospital administration saw this as a turning point in terms of quality indicators, necessitating a significant investment in patient safety and quality programs. According to Khan, Al-Dorzi, and Al-Attas (2020), hospital administration should implement a ventilator care bundle for VAP prevention and for lowering the incidence of VAP in the PICU.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA bundle concept for the prevention of VAP was created by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in Cambridge in 2006. The hospital consists of four parts: daily sedation-vacation, prophylactic treatment for deep vein thrombosis, prophylactic treatment for peptic ulcer disease, and head of bed elevation. A hand hygiene campaign and an oral care protocol were two additional interventions that were probably complementary to the ventilator bundle. The ventilator day-by-day rate decreased from 2.66 to zero with these interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of bundled care, education, and performance metrics to track the occurrence of infection or surveillance are crucial components in the prevention of VAP in the pediatric population. Nursing education is fundamental for understanding \u0026quot;incidence, risk factors, and prevention protocols\u0026quot; and serves as the cornerstone for interprofessional VAP management. The incidence of VAP can be reduced, and interventions such as hand hygiene, bundled care participation, and staff member communication about infection can be improved through education for nurses and other PICU workers (Gupta, Kapil \u0026amp; Kabra, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSignificance of the study\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccording to Mostafa, Rafay, and Adly (2020), the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was 563 per 1000 children. Prolonged hospital stays and long-term disability can be indicative of the healthcare burden associated with VAP. The high prevalence of VAP among mechanically ventilated children in the PICU is closely linked to inadequate training and practice. According to Latef, Kamel, and Abdallah (2022), the incidence of VAP was 22.3 per 100 children in the study, and the incidence was 37.56 per 1000 ventilation days in the PICU.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnwrAk, Saadoon, and Sayed (2023) concluded that VAP is also connected to death and extended hospital and ICU stays. In children in critical care, VAP is the second most common infection among those hospitalized in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units. Care bundles have been widely recommended for patients on mechanical ventilation in clinical practice. To improve children\u0026apos;s health outcomes, a care bundle identifies a number of crucial interventions derived from evidence-based guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFew studies on the use of VCB for caring for children have been performed in Egypt. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to assess how a ventilator care bundle for pediatric nurses affects the incidence of pediatric ventilator-associated pneumonia. This ventilator care bundle should help reduce the incidence of VAP in children while also enhancing nurses\u0026rsquo; knowledge and practices in child care. Additionally, directions and suggestions should be included in pediatric nursing education, and data should be obtained based on evidence that can advance nursing practice and research in the area of pediatric critical care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eAim of the study\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe current study aimed to evaluate the effect of the use of a ventilator care bundle for pediatric nurses on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among children.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eResearch Hypotheses\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Nurses who use the ventilator care bundle will have a higher mean score for knowledge and practice than will those who did not.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2Children who receive care from nurses after receiving the ventilator care bundle will have less exposure to ventilator-associated pneumonia than the control group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA pre/posttest quasi experimental research design was utilized to achieve the aim of the current study. A quasi experimental design is a type of experimental design that is very similar to the true experimental design except that one criterion is lost as randomization (Grove \u0026amp; Cipher, 2019). The clinical trial number is not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSetting\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNurses and children were selected from the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) on the ground floor at Cairo University Specialized Pediatric Hospital (CUSPH). The intensive care unit receives children of different ages as well as different diagnoses in critical situations that require careful nursing care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll available pediatric nurses who were working in the PICU (30) and agreed to participate in the current study were included regardless of their age, qualification, sex, years of experience and purposive sample of 60 children on mechanical ventilation in the. The first 30 children were considered the control group received routine mechanical ventilator care in the hospital, and the second 30 children were subjected to VCB performed by nurses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInclusion criteria\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAll\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;children\u0026nbsp;were\u0026nbsp;admitted to\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;PICU and intubated within 24 hours.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;Children up to 5 years.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExclusion criteria\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChildren diagnosed with pneumonia at the time of admission\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChildren re-intubation.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChildren complain of immune diseases such as\u0026nbsp;rheumatoid disease\u0026nbsp;and DM or receive immune drugs.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003econsiderations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrimary approval was obtained from the\u0026nbsp;Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Nursing\u0026nbsp;at Cairo University. All nurses and caregivers of children\u0026nbsp;provided\u0026nbsp;written consent and verbal explanations about the nature of the study,\u0026nbsp;voluntary participation,\u0026nbsp;what study involvement would entail,\u0026nbsp;anonymity and confidentiality issues,\u0026nbsp;and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any effect on their child\u0026rsquo;s care. For ethical\u0026nbsp;reasons,\u0026nbsp;data\u0026nbsp;were\u0026nbsp;collected\u0026nbsp;first\u0026nbsp;from children in the control group and then\u0026nbsp;from those in\u0026nbsp;the study group. Final\u0026nbsp;approval\u0026nbsp;was obtained from the scientific research ethical committee\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;the faculty of nursing at Cairo\u0026nbsp;University\u0026nbsp;FWA00026458.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData collection tools\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe required tools were developed after reviewing the related literature and will be completed by the researcher:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Structured Interview Sheet\u003c/strong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;This tool was\u0026nbsp;developed by the researchers after reviewing the related literature. It includes 20 items classified under three parts:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePart I:\u003c/strong\u003e This part included six (6) items about the characteristics of the children, such as age, diagnosis, sex, rank, place of residence, and reason for putting the child on MV.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePart II\u003c/strong\u003e included seven items related to the child\u0026apos;s medical history and present history, such as previous illness, previous diagnosis, previous admission to the PICU, cause of admission, duration of PICU stay, symptoms on admission, and diagnostic evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePart III:\u003c/strong\u003e This part included seven items related to the personal and professional data of the pediatric nurses, such as age, sex, qualification, years of experience, training courses in the PICU and MV, and frequency of training courses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Nurses\u0026apos; Knowledge Assessment Questionnaire (pre/posttest):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis questionnaire included twenty questions developed by the researchers to assess pediatric nurses\u0026rsquo; knowledge about mechanical ventilation, such as the assessment of MV, which includes 6 questions; the care of a child on MV, which includes 9 questions; the weaning of MV, which includes 3 questions; and the medication, which includes 2 questions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScoring system\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor nurses\u0026rsquo; knowledge each correct and complete response\u0026nbsp;was given\u0026nbsp;a \u0026ldquo;2\u0026rdquo; score,\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;incomplete response\u0026nbsp;was given\u0026nbsp;a \u0026ldquo;1\u0026rdquo; score and the wrong response were\u0026nbsp;given a value of\u0026nbsp;zero. The total score\u0026nbsp;was\u0026nbsp;40,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;the data were\u0026nbsp;converted to 100% and then categorized as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eExcellent (85% to 100%).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVery good (75% to \u0026lt; 85%).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGood (65% to \u0026lt; 75%).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePass (60% to \u0026lt;65%).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Ventilator bundle checklist:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis tool was adopted based on the guidelines of the Institute of Health Care Improvement by Resaret et al. (2005) to assess the \u0026nbsp;of 8 items for ventilator care bundle practices. The key components of the ventilator care bundle checklist are as follows: washing hands, care of the ventilator machine, elevation of the head of the bed 30 degrees, mouth care with normal saline 9% or distilled water, daily sedation interruption, assessment of readiness to extubation, peptic ulcer disease prophylaxis and deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScoring system\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eRegarding\u0026nbsp;nurses\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;practices\u0026nbsp;(ventilator bundle checklist) each item was scored as\u0026nbsp;follows: complete/correct practice took a \u0026ldquo;2\u0026rdquo; score, incomplete/incorrect took a \u0026ldquo;1\u0026rdquo; score, and not done/missed took a \u0026ldquo;0\u0026rdquo; score. The total score was 16,\u0026nbsp;and the total score\u0026nbsp;was\u0026nbsp;converted to 100%. The patients were subsequently\u0026nbsp;categorized as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA total score less than 75% which is less than 12 was considered an unsatisfactory level of practice.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA total score of 75%,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;was\u0026nbsp;12 or more,\u0026nbsp;was considered\u0026nbsp;to indicate\u0026nbsp;a satisfactory level of practice.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis score was\u0026nbsp;adopted from Pugin, Auckenthaler \u0026amp; Mili (1991). It has been proposed for the diagnosis and management of VAP based on 6 clinical assessments, each worth 0\u0026ndash;2 points, including fever, leukocyte count, quantity and purulence of tracheal secretions, oxygenation, type of radiographic abnormality, and results of sputum culture. Total scores from 0 to 6 points indicated that pneumonia\u0026nbsp;was\u0026nbsp;less likely,\u0026nbsp;a score from 7 to 12\u0026nbsp;indicated that\u0026nbsp;pneumonia\u0026nbsp;was\u0026nbsp;more likely,\u0026nbsp;and the reliability of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;CPIS was 96%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable width=\"586\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCPIS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScore\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"586\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1- \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatient temperature\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026ge;36.5 degrees C and \u0026le;38.4 degrees C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026ge;38.5 degrees C and \u0026le;38.9 degrees C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 point\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026ge;39 degrees C \u0026le;36 degrees C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"586\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2- \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeukocyte count\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026ge;4,000/mm\u003csup\u003e-3\u003c/sup\u003e and \u0026le;11,000/mm\u003csup\u003e-3\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026lt;4,000/mm\u003csup\u003e-3\u003c/sup\u003e or \u0026gt;11,000/mm\u003csup\u003e-3\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 point\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026lt;4,000/mm\u003csup\u003e-3\u003c/sup\u003e or \u0026gt;11,000/mm\u003csup\u003e-3\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"586\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3- \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTracheal secretions (summed over 24 hours)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Rare\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Abundant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 point\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Abundant+ purulent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"586\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4- \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePaO2(mmHg)/FIO2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026gt;240 or ARDS present\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026le;240 or no evidence of ARDS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"586\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5- \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChest X-ray\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;No infiltrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Diffuse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 point\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Localized\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"586\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6- \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMicrobiology (culture growth from tracheal aspirate\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Negative\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"393\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Positive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"193\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"586\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCPIS Interpretation \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0 to 6 points\u003c/strong\u003e= Pneumonia less likely\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 7 to 12 points\u003c/strong\u003e = Pneumonia more likely\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValidity and Reliability:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data\u0026nbsp;collection tools\u0026nbsp;used in\u0026nbsp;the study were given to a group of 5 experts in the field of\u0026nbsp;pediatric intensive care\u0026nbsp;and pediatric nursing to test the content validity of the tools,\u0026nbsp;and modifications were\u0026nbsp;made\u0026nbsp;by the experts to increase tool validation. The reliability of the\u0026nbsp;tools was\u0026nbsp;assessed\u0026nbsp;to confirm tool consistency, for which the\u0026nbsp;Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was\u0026nbsp;0.80.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore conducting the study, official permission was obtained from the directors of CUSPH, and permission from the head of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;PICU\u0026nbsp;was\u0026nbsp;also obtained after the nature of the study\u0026nbsp;was explained. Informed consent was\u0026nbsp;obtained from the caregivers of children in both the study and control groups. Clear and simple explanations about the aim and nature of the study were given by the researchers to\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;nurses, and written\u0026nbsp;consent was\u0026nbsp;obtained from those who agreed to participate in the study. Then,\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;caregivers and nurses\u0026nbsp;completed a\u0026nbsp;structured interview sheet (tool 1).\u0026nbsp;A\u0026nbsp;pretest was performed to assess\u0026nbsp;nurses\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;level of knowledge about care for children and MV.\u0026nbsp;Additionally, nurses were observed to assess their level of practice using an observational checklist about\u0026nbsp;the use of a\u0026nbsp;ventilator care bundle for nurses on an individual basis\u0026nbsp;depending on working time with a child. Data\u0026nbsp;from the nurses and children in the control group were collected before the study group of children and the control groups\u0026nbsp;were\u0026nbsp;receiving routine ventilator care in the PICU.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;researchers will\u0026nbsp;then\u0026nbsp;present two sessions. The\u0026nbsp;first session\u0026nbsp;will consist of a\u0026nbsp;theoretical\u0026nbsp;section\u0026nbsp;about\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;knowledge of MV and child care on MV.\u0026nbsp;Pediatric nurses were\u0026nbsp;provided\u0026nbsp;this information\u0026nbsp;on an individual basis depending on the work schedule in\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;waiting room in\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;PICU.\u0026nbsp;The session\u0026nbsp;lasted approximately 30-45 minutes\u0026nbsp;according to the\u0026nbsp;data\u0026nbsp;provided\u0026nbsp;during\u0026nbsp;the experiment, and\u0026nbsp;after one week, the posttest was\u0026nbsp;administered\u0026nbsp;to assess the knowledge of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;nurses (tool 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second session, containing the practical part of the ventilator care bundle, was subsequently conducted for the nurses through demonstration and re-demonstration of the doll to master the required skills. The session lasted approximately 40-60 minutes, and the ventilator care bundle was applied twice daily for one week for children in the PICU. The researchers will evaluate the nurses\u0026rsquo; performance regarding the use of the ventilator care bundle for children in the study group through an observational checklist administered twice, once on the third day and once on the sixth day (tool 3). The tool (4) was completed by the researchers for children in the study one week after the implementation of ventilator care bundle intubation to assess the occurrence of VAP. The data were collected over twelve months from July 2022 to July 2023.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe collected data were tabulated and summarized. The data were computerized and analyze using the appropriate descriptive frequency and percentages are expressed as qualitative information. The parametric chi-square test was used to compare qualitative variables. For comparisons of means, paired-sample t tests and inferential statistical tests were used to test the study hypotheses. The level of significance was set at p \u0026lt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable (1)\u0026nbsp;reveals\u0026nbsp;that two thirds (43.3%) of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;children on MV participated in the\u0026nbsp;present\u0026nbsp;study,\u0026nbsp;and 50% of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;children in the control group\u0026nbsp;were aged\u0026nbsp;1 year to less than 3 years. The mean age was\u0026nbsp;2.5\u0026plusmn;1.32\u0026nbsp;years\u0026nbsp;for children in the study group and\u0026nbsp;2.1\u0026plusmn;1.31\u0026nbsp;years\u0026nbsp;for those in the control group. Less than two thirds (63.3%) of the studied children and more than half (53.3%) of the control group were\u0026nbsp;females.\u0026nbsp;The same table\u0026nbsp;shows\u0026nbsp;that 40% and 50%, in order of children in both groups,\u0026nbsp;were ranked as the second and third\u0026nbsp;children\u0026nbsp;within the family, respectively. It was found\u0026nbsp;that 70% and 56.7%, respectively, of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;children in the study and control groups lived in urban areas. The same table\u0026nbsp;indicates\u0026nbsp;that there was a statistically significant difference between children in both\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;study and control groups regarding\u0026nbsp;sex\u0026nbsp;and place of residence (X\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e= 7.33., p=.010;\u0026nbsp;X\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e= 9.36, p= .006, respectively).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 clearly shows that 36.7% and 33.3%, respectively, of the children in both groups complained of shock, while more than one quarter (23.3%) and 26.7% of the children in both groups were diagnosed with respiratory distress syndrome. Only 20% of the children in the study group complained of accidents and postoperative complications. One-third (33.3%) of the children in the control group were diagnosed with accidents. Similarly, more than one-third of the children in the study group had respiratory and non-respiratory causes of MV, while half (50%) of the children in the control group had non-respiratory causes of MV, and the majority of the children in both groups did not suffer from other diseases. Ten percent of the children in the study group and 16.7% of those in the control group had been admitted to the PICU before admission, and two-thirds of the children in the study group complained of pneumonia as a reason for their admission to the PICU, while less than two-thirds of those in the control group were suffering from dehydration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table 3 clearly shows that more than two-fifths (46.3%) of the children in the study group and half (50%) of those in the control group had lived in the PICU for three weeks. With regard to symptoms on admission to the PICU, 30% and 26.7% of the children in both groups complained of disturbance consciousness, respectively, while 23.3% and 33.3%, respectively, in both groups, had respiratory distress. More than two-thirds (70%) of the children in the study group were diagnosed with both radiological images and ABGs, whereas more than half (53.3%) of the children in the control group were diagnosed with these conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable (4) shows that more than half of the nurses ranged in age from 20 to less than 30 years, with a mean age of \u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e6.23 \u0026plusmn;25.66\u003c/span\u003e years, and more than half of them were females. Regarding nurses\u0026rsquo; qualifications, 46.7% of them graduated from the Technical Institute of Nursing. Concerning nurses\u0026rsquo; years of experience in the PICU, more than half (53.3%) of the nurses had less than 5 years of experience. More than half (56.7%) of the nurses attended training courses in pediatric intensive care, and only one-third (33.3%) of them attended mechanical ventilator training courses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 shows that highly significant differences were detected between the total mean scores of nurses\u0026apos; knowledge (assessment of MV, care of a child on MV, weaning of MV, and medications) for the pre- and post-treatments at P \u0026lt; 0.01.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable (6)\u0026nbsp;illustrates\u0026nbsp;that 6.7% of the nurses had an excellent level of knowledge\u0026nbsp;regarding\u0026nbsp;MV before the implementation of the ventilator care bundle,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;this percentage increased to 53.3% after receiving the ventilator care bundle. Twenty percent of them had a poor level of knowledge before receiving the ventilator care bundle compared to no one after receiving the ventilator care bundle. A statistically significant difference was detected between nurses\u0026rsquo; level of knowledge before and after the implementation of the ventilator care bundle (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e= 21.46, p\u0026le; 0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7 highlights\u0026nbsp;that 80%\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;73.3%,\u0026nbsp;respectively,\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;nurses performed\u0026nbsp;complete\u0026nbsp;hand washing before and after contact with mechanical ventilation in both readings\u0026nbsp;after\u0026nbsp;VCB implementation, \u0026nbsp;whereas\u0026nbsp;more than one\u0026nbsp;quarter of the\u0026nbsp;nurses performed incomplete hand washing in the 2nd reading. A total of 76.7% and 70%, respectively, of the\u0026nbsp;nurses performed complete care of the ventilator machine in both readings\u0026nbsp;after\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;implementation\u0026nbsp;of VCB, whereas\u0026nbsp;more than one\u0026nbsp;quarter\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;nurses performed incomplete care in the 2nd reading. With regard to\u0026nbsp;children nursed in a semi recumbent position and daily sedation,\u0026nbsp;more than three-quarters of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;nurses completed\u0026nbsp;the VCB\u0026nbsp;in the 1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e reading,\u0026nbsp;and the majority of them did\u0026nbsp;so\u0026nbsp;in the 2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e reading\u0026nbsp;after\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;implementation\u0026nbsp;of VCB, while\u0026nbsp;10% and 6.7%,\u0026nbsp;respectively, did not. The majority of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;nurses performed regular oral hygiene\u0026nbsp;maintenance\u0026nbsp;every 4 hours and daily\u0026nbsp;assessments\u0026nbsp;of readiness to extubate\u0026nbsp;during\u0026nbsp;the 1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e reading;\u0026nbsp;80%\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;93.3%,\u0026nbsp;respectively,\u0026nbsp;completed a 2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e reading\u0026nbsp;after\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;implementation\u0026nbsp;of VCB,\u0026nbsp;and less than one-quarter of those incomplete performed both readings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe same table\u0026nbsp;shows\u0026nbsp;that the majority of nurses\u0026nbsp;who completed\u0026nbsp;both readings performed care for\u0026nbsp;peptic ulcer disease prophylaxis,76.7%\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;86.7%\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;nurses\u0026nbsp;who completed\u0026nbsp;both readings performed deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis,\u0026nbsp;and less than one-quarter of those incomplete performed both readings.\u0026nbsp;There were statistically significant differences in\u0026nbsp;two readings between the nurses who used the\u0026nbsp;ventilator care bundle checklist (x\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=3.91, p=. 057, x\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e= \u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e7.74\u003c/span\u003e, p=. 001, x\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e= 3.70, p=. 054, x\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e3.81\u003c/span\u003e, p= .051 in order) at p \u0026lt; 0.05 and \u0026lt; 0.01.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8\u0026nbsp;shows\u0026nbsp;that the mean total score\u0026nbsp;for nurses\u0026rsquo; preference\u0026nbsp;after the\u0026nbsp;ventilator care bundle\u0026nbsp;was\u0026nbsp;1.93\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u003c/span\u003e.253 in the first reading and 1.83 \u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u003c/span\u003e.379 in the second reading. There was a statistically significant difference between the total mean score of nurses\u0026rsquo; practices in the first and second readings (p= \u0026lt;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConcerning the occurrence of clinical pulmonary infection among children in the study and control groups, Table (9) clearly shows that more than two-fifths of the children in the study group had a normal temperature or fever, and there were rare tracheal secretions; moreover, 56.7% of the children in the control group had hyperpyrexia or hypothermia. It was found that in 43.3% of the children in the study group, the leukocyte count was normal compared to 40% of the children in the control group who had leucopenia or lymphocytosis. Nearly three-quarters (73.3%) of the participants in the study group did not have evidence of RDS, while less than two-thirds of the children in the control group had RDS. On chest X-ray, 56.7% of the children in the study group had no infiltrate, whereas half of those in the control group had localized signs on X-ray. The majority of children in the study group had negative culture growth, although 63.3% of those in the control group had positive culture growth. The results indicated that there were statistically significant differences between children in both the study and control groups regarding the clinical pulmonary infection score (p\u0026lt;0.5, P\u0026lt;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 10\u0026nbsp;shows\u0026nbsp;that the mean total\u0026nbsp;clinical pulmonary infection\u0026nbsp;scores (CPISs) for the study and control\u0026nbsp;groups were\u0026nbsp;5.800\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn; 1.297 and 7.600 \u0026plusmn; 2.044,\u0026nbsp;respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the\u0026nbsp;total mean CPIS\u0026nbsp;score in\u0026nbsp;the study\u0026nbsp;group\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;that in\u0026nbsp;the control group\u0026nbsp;(t= - 3.692, p=. 001).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eConcerning the demographic data, it was evident from the results of the present study that two-thirds of the children on MV in the study group and half of the children in the control group were aged 1 year to less than 3 years. The current result contradicts that of Bhattacharya et al. (2023), who confirmed that 37 (36.2%) pediatric patients had VAP, with children aged one to five years being the most frequently affected age group. According to the current study, more than half of the control group and less than two thirds of the studied children were female. These findings contrast with those of Seifu1 et al. (2022), who reported that out of the 361 pediatric patients examined, 197 (54.6%) were boys and 164 (45.4%) were girls.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 70% and 56.7% of the children in the study and control groups, respectively, lived in urban areas; more than one-third of the children in both groups complained of shock and more than one-quarter of the children in both groups were diagnosed with respiratory distress syndrome. This explanation aligns with the findings of Dendir et al. (2023), who reported that 165 (41.7%) of the 396 pediatric ICU patients included in the study were from urban areas. They also discovered that 39.2% of young patients admitted to the intensive care unit had acute respiratory distress syndrome. Conversely, in line with the findings of Bacha, Tsegaye, and Tuli, based on research conducted in India, septic shock (27.14%), respiratory disorders (20.9%), and cardiovascular illness (41.1%) were the most common causes of PICU.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was evident in the results of the present study that two-thirds of the children in the study group complained of pneumonia as a reason for the child\u0026rsquo;s admission to the PICU, whereas less than two-thirds of those in the control group suffered from dehydration. These results contrast with those of Arafah, Murni, and Rusmawatiningtyas (2020), who concluded that neurological diseases, which were statistically significant independent predictors of prolonged PICU stays, affected 26.7% of children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current study indicated that more than two-fifths of the children in the study group and half of those in the control group had lived in the PICU for three weeks. Fayed and AlYousef (2022) provided support for this finding, indicating that respiratory diseases accounted for the majority of long-stay patients (51.53%), with comorbidities and complications occurring during the stay (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Concerning the child's symptoms on admission to the PICU, nearly one-quarter and one-third of them in the two groups, respectively, experienced respiratory distress. This was supported by the findings of Nilofer, Sunil, and Punit (2017), who reported that respiratory failure was the most common indication 20.83%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerning the diagnostic evaluation of the children, it was evident from the results of the present study that more than two-thirds of the children in the study group were diagnosed with both radiological images and ABGs, while more than half of those in the control group were diagnosed with ABGs. Similarly, Antalova et al. (2022) reported that, in the early stages of pneumonia development, there may be only a few signs of inflammation on X-ray. The authors recommended repeating the test over time in patients with a high clinical suspicion and other criteria for worsening of gas exchange.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current study revealed that more than half of the nurses (with a mean age of 6.23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;25.66 years) were aged\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;20 to \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;30 years, and more than half of them were females. This result was similar to that of Abou Zed \u0026amp; Mohammed (2019), who reported that the mean age of the participants, which accounted for 74.3% of the sample, was 26.63\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.25 years, with a range of 20 to less than 30 years. Additionally, these findings support the findings of Pena et al. (2021), who reported that 80% of all PICU working nurses were female.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding nurses\u0026rsquo; qualifications, the study results showed that more than two-fifths of them had graduated from the Technical Institute of Nursing and that more than half of the nurses had less than 5 years of experience. The current results agreed with the findings of El-Sayed et al. (2023) that more than 53.3% of nurses hold degrees from technical nursing institutes. Furthermore, these findings align with the findings of Ibrahim, Al-Rafay, and Tantawi (2021), who evaluated the effect of a bundled approach training program on pediatric and neonatal nurses in terms of preventing device-related infections in the PICU and NICU of Ain Shams University Specialist Hospital. Their findings showed that 61.4% of nurses had worked in the PICU and NICU for a minimum of 10 years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the results of the present study, highly significant differences were detected between the total mean scores of nurses\u0026rsquo; knowledge of the use of the ventilator care bundle pre- and post-intervention (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). These findings supported Thompson's (2020) assertion that nurses knew more about VAP prevention after receiving instruction than they did prior to instruction (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Additionally, in practically every knowledge domain, there were highly statistically significant differences between the pre- and posttest total knowledge scores.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerning nurses\u0026rsquo; knowledge, 6.7% of the nurses had an excellent level of knowledge regarding MV before the implementation of the ventilator care bundle, and this percentage increased to more than half after receiving the ventilator care bundle. These results were in line with those of Ahmed \u0026amp; Abosamra (2022), who investigated pediatric critical care nurses' knowledge of evidence-based recommendations for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and found that 65.3% of the study sample knew insufficiently about these guidelines. From the researcher's view, this is because there is no written protocol regarding evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of VAP in units, and nurses are not aware of the importance of such interventions and their implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e In relation to nurses' level of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003efor preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, the results of this study revealed that more than two-thirds\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e A total of 65.3% of the studied samples had unsatisfactory levels of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines for\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003epreventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. This may be due to the lack of a written protocol regarding evidence-based\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e guidelines for the prevention of VAP in both units. This lack of knowledge is considered an enormous barrier to\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e implementation of evidence-based guidelines for VAP prevention, as resources are available at times but\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses are not aware of the importance of such interventions and their implementation. This result was supported by the\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eresults of Gomes (2010), who reported that the majority of participants had adequate knowledge of\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e evidence-based guidelines for prevention of VAP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn relation to nurses' level of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003efor preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, the results of this study revealed that more than two-thirds\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 65.3% of the studied samples had unsatisfactory levels of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines for\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003epreventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. This may be due to the lack of a written protocol regarding evidence-based\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eguidelines for the prevention of VAP in both units. This lack of knowledge is considered an enormous barrier to\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eimplementation of evidence-based guidelines for VAP prevention, as resources are available at times but\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses are not aware of the importance of such interventions and their implementation. This result was supported by the\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eresults of Gomes (2010), who reported that the majority of participants had adequate knowledge of\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eevidence-based guidelines for prevention of VAP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn relation to nurses' level of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003efor preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, the results of this study revealed that more than two-thirds\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 65.3% of the studied samples had unsatisfactory levels of knowledge regarding evidence-based guidelines for\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003epreventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. This may be due to the lack of a written protocol regarding evidence-based\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eguidelines for the prevention of VAP in both units. This lack of knowledge is considered an enormous barrier to\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eimplementation of evidence-based guidelines for VAP prevention, as resources are available at times but\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses are not aware of the importance of such interventions and their implementation. This result was supported by the\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eresults of Gomes (2010), who reported that the majority of participants had adequate knowledge of\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eevidence-based guidelines for prevention of VAP\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study's results indicated that twenty percent of them had a poor level of knowledge before receiving a ventilator care bundle compared to no one after receiving the ventilator care bundle. Gerida, El-Sheikh, and AbdElraouf (2022) provided support for this finding. They examined nurses' performance and knowledge in relation to infection prevention measures for pneumonia associated with ventilators. They discovered that 90% and 96.7% of the nurses in their study had low total knowledge scores and required training to improve their knowledge. On the other hand, a statistically significant difference was detected in nurses\u0026rsquo; level of knowledge before and after the implementation of the ventilator care bundle p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01. These findings were consistent with those of Thompson (2020), who examined a sample consisting of 75 nurses and reported that the nursing staff had a lower level of instruction before teaching than after teaching p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current study indicated that the majority and more than two-thirds of nurses performed hand washing before and after contact with mechanical ventilation, respectively, in both readings after the implementation of VCB. This finding is consistent with that of Mahfoz, El Sayed, and Ahmed (2022), who discovered statistically significant variations in the hand-washing practices of nurses before and after program implementation. After the instructions were implemented, all the nurses completed their hand washing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the results of the present study, more than three-quarters and more than two-thirds of the nurses performed complete care of the ventilator machine after the VCB was implemented. This result is congruent with the findings of Abusalah (2019), who reported that 67.28% of the nurses involved in the study completed the overall observation checklist with reference to hand washing as a V preventive measure in PICUs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the current study revealed that, for children nursed in a semi recumbent position, the majority of them performed well on the 2nd reading after the implementation of VAP. These results were supported by those of El-Sayed, Khalil, and EL-kazaz (2023), who corroborated these findings by reporting that 83% and 88.8%, respectively, of nurses had a satisfactory level of post program knowledge regarding ventilator equipment care and position, and the majority of them had a satisfactory level of follow-up phase knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e With respect to oral hygiene, the majority of nurses performed regular oral hygiene maintenance every 4 hours and daily assessment of readiness to extubate in the 1st reading, and the majority and vast majority of them completed regular oral hygiene in the 2nd reading after implementation of VCB; only less than one-quarter of those incomplete oral hygiene was performed in both readings. This result was confirmed by Li et al.'s (2021) discovery that hospital-acquired pneumonia patients' respiratory pathogens are similar to those in their oral cavities. The gums of newborns and infants should be wiped using a small soft toothbrush or a gauze swab soaked in clean water or saline solution, according to guidelines published by the New Zealand Dental Association in 2006.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study's results indicated that there were statistically significant differences in the nurses' compliance with the use of the ventilator care bundle checklist according to the two readings (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 and \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Ultimately, these results align with the findings of Akl et al. (2020) in Egypt, who reported a strong statistically significant relationship between nurses\u0026rsquo; practices and pre- and post-application of the VAP care bundle to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the present study illustrated that there was a statistically significant difference between the total mean score of nurses\u0026rsquo; practices on the first and second readings after the ventilator care bundle p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01. This finding is consistent with the findings of Abou Zed and Mohammed (2019), who reported statistically significant differences in pre and post-intervention mean scores for nurses' performance and knowledge in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in newborns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere were statistically significant differences between the clinical pulmonary infection scores of the children in both the study and control groups (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.5, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). This explanation was in line with that of Basyigit (2020), who reported a difference in the pre-diagnosed CPIS levels of VAP- positive patients and VAP-negative patients, and significant differences were found between the 2nd-day and 5th-day CPISs (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClearly, the study results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the total mean score on the CPIS between the study group and the control group (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001).These findings contradict those of Fang, Mao, Jiang, and Yin (2022), who reported that the total effective rate (95.45%) was greater in the most comprehensive group (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAccording to the findings of the present study, there were highly significant differences between the study group of nurses who received ventilator care bundles and those who did not in terms of their overall mean scores for VCB knowledge and practices for children on MV. Additionally, compared to those in the control group, children under the care of nurses receiving VCB sessions were less likely to experience VAP. The study's findings also showed that, in terms of the clinical pulmonary infection score, there were statistically significant differences between the children in the study and control groups.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e- \u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that supported the\u0026nbsp;findings\u0026nbsp;of this\u0026nbsp;study\u0026nbsp;are available\u0026nbsp;upon\u0026nbsp;request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe declare that we have no significant competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the performance or presentation of the work described in this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e- Funding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript\u0026nbsp;or\u0026nbsp;for conducting this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-Authors' contributions.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA, B\u0026amp;C researchers conceived the study; A.C developed the theoretical framework of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;research;\u0026nbsp;A\u0026amp;C researchers aided in the analysis;\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;B\u0026amp;C\u0026nbsp;supervised the project. All\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript. Researchers A\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;B\u0026nbsp;analyze\u0026nbsp;the data and wrote the manuscript;\u0026nbsp;however, A\u0026amp;C\u0026nbsp;researchers contributed to the final version and supervised the project. Researchers A, B, and C wrote the manuscript with input from all\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;authors for overall direction and planning. All\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;researchers contributed to the design and implementation of the research, the analysis of the results, and the writing of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e- Acknowledgment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Shaqra University for supporting this work.\u0026nbsp;Additionally, the researchers would like to thank all\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;teams in the\u0026nbsp;pediatric\u0026nbsp;intensive care unit at Cairo University Specialized Pediatric Hospital for their cooperation in working.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecommendations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the results of the current study,\u0026nbsp;the following is recommended:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-\u0026nbsp;Integration of the ventilator care bundle for nurses in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is essential.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-Educational\u0026nbsp;programs\u0026nbsp;and in-service training courses for\u0026nbsp;pediatric\u0026nbsp;nurses\u0026nbsp;to increase\u0026nbsp;the quality of\u0026nbsp;ventilator care for children and its benefits\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;the occurrence of VAP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- A longitudinal study is necessary to monitor the relapse of ventilator-associated pneumonia and complications of VAP among children on MV.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Reference","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAlcan AO, van Giersbergen MY, Dincarslan G, Hepcivici Z, Kaya E \u0026amp;Uyar M. (2020). Effect of patient position on endotracheal cuff pressure in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Australian Critical Care. Vol. 30:267\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAlsodaa, M. Al-Shahatb, M. Redac, Sh. Alsawahc, A. Abboudd, M \u0026amp;Elgendye, A. (2022) Implementation of ventilator bundle for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in pediatric intensive care unit .\u0026nbsp;Journal of Medicine in Scientific Research. Volume 2. Issue 4 IP: 10.232.74.23 http://www.jmsr.eg.net\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAnwrAk, Saadoon and Sayed. (2023).Effectiveness of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia Care Bundle on thePediatric Critical Care Nurses Knowledge, Practice and Critically ill Neonates.\u0026nbsp;IOSR Journal of Nursing and Health Science (IOSR-JNHS)e-ISSN: 2320\u0026ndash;1959.p- ISSN: 2320\u0026ndash;1940 Volume 9, Issue 3 Ser. XII (May - June 2020), PP 57-68.\u0026nbsp;DOI: 10.9790/1959-0903125768\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eCatherine, H. (2019). Preventing pediatric ventilator-associated pneumonia. Nursing Critical Care: Volume 10 - Issue 6 - p 42-47doi: 10. 1097/01. CCN. 0000 47 28 45. 62808\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eGrove, S. \u0026amp; Cipher, D. (2019). Statistics of Nursing Research: A Workbook for Evidence- based Practice. (4\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e ed). Elsevier, London. Pp 95-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eGupta A, Kapil A, Kabra, S. (2020). Assessing the impact of an educational intervention on ventilator-associated pneumonia in a pediatric critical care unit. \u003cem\u003eAm J Infect Control\u003c/em\u003e. 2018;42(2):111\u0026ndash;115.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKalanuria, A.Zai,W\u0026amp;Mirski, M. (2019). Ventilator-associated pneumonia in the ICU. Critical Care volume 18, https://ccforum.biome dcentral.com/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eKhan, R. Al-Dorzi, H \u0026amp; Al-Attas, K. (2020). The impact of implementing multifaceted interventions on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAmerican Journal of Infection Control .Vol 44. publication at: https://www.researchgate.eg/publication/296475190\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eKumar, V. (2019). Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Children: Current Status and Future Prospects. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics. Vol 85(10):830\u0026ndash;831 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-018-2783\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eLatefa , D. Kamelb, L \u0026amp;AbdAllah, A. (2022). Ventilator-associated pneumonia:incidence and risk factors in the pediatric intensive care unit . Pp 68-75Vol 32. Issue 2http://www.ajp.eg.net. IP: 213.212.232.132.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMladenov, B. (2020).Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Pediatric ICU Prophylaxis and Treatment. Archives of Pulmonology and Respiratory Medicine ISSN: 2639-362X Volume 3, Issue 1, PP: 25-30\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMohammed, A. Ali, A \u0026amp;Refaat, N. (2022). A descriptive study on the diagnosis and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the neonatal intensive care unit of Assiut University Children\u0026rsquo;s Hospital . Journal of Current Medical Research and Practice. DOI: 10.4103/JCMRP.JCMRP.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMontasser, M. (2019). Decreasing the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia with complete adherence to its prevention bundle. Article 13, Volume 46, Issue 2, Pp 425-432, DOI: 10.12816/0038264.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMostafa, . S. Rafay, S \u0026amp; Adly, R. (2020) Assessment of Health Care Burdens of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Pediatric Intensive Care Units Article 2, Volume 11, Issue 1, Page 12-27 DOI: 10.21608/EJHC.2020.72591.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003ePugin, J. Auckenthaler, R \u0026amp;Mili, N. (1991): Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia by bacteriologic analysis of bronchoscopic and Non bronchoscopic \u0026ldquo;blind\u0026rdquo; broncho -alveolar lavage fluid. Am Rev Respir Dis; 143:1121-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eReda, Sh. Alsawah, A. Abboud, M. Elgendy, A \u0026amp; Al-shahat, M. (2019). implementation of ventilator bundle for prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia in pediatric intensive care unit. Al-Azhar Journal of Ped. Vol. 22 No. https://azjp .journals.ekb.eg/article_\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eResar, R. Pronovost, P.Haraden, C \u0026amp; Simmonds, T. Rainey, T.Nolan, T. (2005). Using a bundle approach to improve ventilator care processes and reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 31:243\u0026ndash;248\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eRiddick, L. Hemingwa, J. \u0026amp; Lumsden, J. (2019). Ventilator associated pneumonia in pediatric intensive care (PICU). pediatric intensive care society. BMJ journals.https://adc.bmj.eg /content/104/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eRosenthal, V.Maki, D. Mehta, Y. Leblebicioglu, H.Memish, Z\u0026amp; Al-Mousa, H. (2019). International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) report, data summary of 43 countries : device-associated module. Am J Infect Control. Vol 42:942-56.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eVijay, G. Mandal, A. Sankar, J. Kapil2, A. Lodha, R \u0026amp;Kabra, S. (2019). Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Incidence, Risk Factors and Etiological Agents. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics . Vol 85(10):861\u0026ndash;866, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-018-2662-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYankov, I \u0026amp;Shmiley, T. (2019) Ventilator- associated pneumonias in children diagnostic criteria, etiology and pathogenesis. Folia Medica. Vol 54(1):5-11. DOI:10.2478/v10153-011-0071-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhattacharya,P. Kumar,A . Ghosh,S and Kumar, S. (2023). Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patients: Microbiological Profile, Risk Factors, and Outcome. Alexander Muacevic and John R Adler. Published online https://doi: 10.7759/cureus.38189\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbou Zed, F., \u0026amp; Mohammed, A. (2019). Impact of nursing guidelines on nurses\u0026rsquo; knowledge and performance regarding to prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia in neonates. Journal of Nursing Education and practice, 9 (10), 1-14\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePena,\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eM. Restrepo, L. Arroyave, F. and Brochero,O. (2021). Impact of an Educational Intervention Aimed at Nursing Staff on Oral Hygiene Care on the Incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Adults Ventilated in Intensive Care Unit. Volume 39(3): e06.Nov 8. doi: 10.17533/udea.iee.v39n3e06.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThompson, S. D. (2020). Examining ICU nurses\u0026apos; knowledge of ventilatorassociated events and ventilator-associated pneumonia, published Doctoral thesis, Walden University, USA.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEl-Sayed, S. Khalil, A. EL-kazaz, R. (2023). Effect of an Educational Program for Nurses about Prevention of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Port Said Scientific Journal of Nursing Vol.10, No. 3, https://pssjn.journals.ekb.eg/article_317321\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMahfoz, F., El Sayed, H., \u0026amp; Ahmed, H. (2022). Effect of design nursing instruction on mechanically ventilated children in pediatric intensive care units. Tanta Scientific Nursing Journal, 26 (3), 28-43\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAkl, B., Saadoon, M., Sayed, A. (2020). Effectiveness of ventilator associated pneumonia care bundle on the pediatric critical care nurse\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, practice and critically ill neonates\u0026rsquo; outcome. Journal of Nursing and Health Science, 9(3), 57-68\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGerida, A. El-Sheikh, O. and Abd Elraouf, S. (2022). Nurses\u0026apos; knowledge and Performance regarding Infection Preventive Measures for Ventilators Associated Pneumonia. Mansoura Nursing Journal (MNJ) Vol. 9. No. 2 \u0026ndash; 2022 Print ISSN: 2735- 4121. Online ISSN : 2735 \u0026ndash; 413X https://mnj.journals.ekb.e.g./article\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIbrahim, A. M., Al-Rafay, S. S., \u0026amp;Tantawi, H. R. (2021). Application of Care Bundle Approach for Preventing Device Associated Infections: A Training Program for Pediatric and Neonatal Nurses. Medico Legal Update, 21(1), 1744-1751.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNilofer, B. Sunil, G. Punit, C. (2017). A study of mechanical ventilation in children. International Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics Bhori NS et al. Int J Contemp Pediatr.Nov;4(6):2088-2092. pISSN 2349-3283. DOI: http://dx.doi.org /10.18203/23 49-3291.ijcp20174737\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAlKhalifah,R . Fayed, A. AlYousef, S. (2022). Factors influencing the length of stay among patients admitted to a tertiary pediatric intensive care unit in Saudi Arabia.\u003cbr\u003eSec. Pediatric Critical Care. Volume 10. Available at https://doi.org /10.3389/ fped .2022.1093160\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDendir,G.Awoke,N. Alemu,A. Sintayhu,A. Eanga,S. Teshome,M. Zerfu,M. Tila,M. Dessu,B. Efa,A. Gashaw,A. (2023). Factors Associated with the Outcome of a Pediatric Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Unit in Resource-Limited Setup: Cross-Sectional Study. Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics. Volume 14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/PHMT.S389404\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBacha T, Tsegaye N, Tuli W. (2021). Characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated pediatric patients in a tertiary referral hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: cross sectional study. Ethiop J Health Sci ;31:5.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eArafah, Y Murni, I. and Rusmawatiningtyas, D. (2020). Predictors of prolonged stay in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatrica Indonesiana 60(1):37-41. P-ISSN 0030-9311; e-ISSN 2338-476X; Vol.60, No.1. p. 37-41; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14238/pi60.1.2020.37-41\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eSeifu1, A. Eshetu,O. Tafesse,D and Hailu,S. (2022). Admission pattern, treatment outcomes, and associated factors for children admitted to pediatric intensive care unit of Tikur Anbessa specialized hospital: a retrospective crosssectional study. Avaliable at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01556-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAntalova, N. Klucka, J. Ihova, M. Pol\u0026aacute;, S. Pokorn\u0026aacute;, A. \u0026Scaron;toura, P. (2022). Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prevention in Pediatric Patients: Narrative Review Children, 9, 1540. Avaliable at: https://doi.org/10.3390/children9101540\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAhmed, G. Abosamra, O. (2022). Knowledge of Pediatric Critical Care Nurses Regarding Evidence Based Guidelines for Prevention of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP). Journal of Education and Practice. Vol.6, No.9. ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) www.iiste.org\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eThompson, S.D. (2020). Examining ICU nurses\u0026apos; knowledge of ventilator associated events and ventilator-associated pneumonia, published Doctoral thesis, Walden University, USA.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAbusalah, A . Abuadwan, A and Shuaib, K. (2019). Practices of nurses toward prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia at pediatric intensive care units-Gaza strip. ISSN: 2457-0400 Volume: 3. Issue: 2. Page N. 22-27. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331716187\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eLi, D.F. Shi, C.X. Zhao, L. Shi, F.Z. Jiang, M.L. Kang, W.Q. (2021). Prevention of neonatal ventilator associated pneumonia through oral care with the combined use of colostrum and sodium bicarbonate. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. Mar;25(5):2361-2366.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFang, C. Mao, Y. Jiang, M. Yin, W. (2022). Pediatric Critical Illness Score, Clinical Characteristics and Comprehensive Treatment of Children with Severe Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Pneumonia. Sec. Visceral Surgery. Volume 9 https://doi. org/ 10.33 89/ fsurg.2022.897550\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBasyigit, S. (2020). Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) as a Screening Tool in Ventilatory Associated Pneumonia (VAP). Volume: 51, Number 2. Studies- Araştırmalar. DOI: 10.5350/SEMB.20170208030528\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInstitute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). (2006). Using Care Bundles to Improve Health Care Quality. Avaliable at: https://www.ihi.org/resources/white\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 10 are available in the Supplementary Files section\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Ventilator- associated pneumonia, Ventilator Care Bundle, Pediatric Nurses Children.","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5010435/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5010435/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground: \u003c/strong\u003eIn pediatric intensive care units (ICUs), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most prevalent infections linked to healthcare. VAP affects 10% of children on mechanical ventilation and is linked to severe morbidity and mortality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAim:\u003c/strong\u003e The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of the ventilator care bundle (VCB) on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among pediatric patients.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign: A \u003c/strong\u003epre posttest quasi experimental research design was utilized in the present study.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSetting:\u003c/strong\u003e Thisstudy was conducted in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) at Cairo University Specialized Pediatric Hospital (CUSPH).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample:\u003c/strong\u003e A convenience sample of 30 nurses and a purposive sample of 60 ventilated children in the PICU participated in the present study. Children were divided into two equal groups: 30 as a control group and 30 as a study group. Nurses were the same for the study and control groups. \u003cstrong\u003eTools: \u003c/strong\u003eData collection was performed through 1) structured interview sheet, 2) the Nurses' Knowledge Assessment Questionnaire (pre-posttest), 3) the Ventilator bundle checklist, and 4) the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Scale (CPIS). Results: More than two-fifths of the children on MV participated in the present study, and half of the children in the control group were aged 1 year to less than 3 years. Less than two-thirds of the studied children and more than half of the control group were females. Two-fifths and half the order of the children in both groups were ranked as the second and third children, respectively, within the family, while more than one-third of the children in both groups complained of shock. More than one-quarter of the children in both groups complained of disturbance consciousness. There were statistically significant differences detected between the total mean scores of nurses' knowledge and practice before/after the use of the ventilator care bundle (P \u0026lt; 0.01). There was a statistically significant difference between the total mean score on the CPIS between the study group and the control group (t= - 3.692, p= .001). Conclusion: The study concluded that children who were cared for by nurses receiving VCB sessions were less likely to experience VAP than were those in the control group. Recommendation: Educational programs and in-service training courses for pediatric nurses to increase the quality of ventilator care for children and its benefits for the occurrence of VAP are essential.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effect of the Ventilator Care Bundle Occurrence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia among Pediatrics","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-09-04 05:23:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5010435/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c5e70815-2c53-4e39-9630-11bd92e930d0","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 4th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":36898831,"name":"Pediatrics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-04T05:23:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-09-04 05:23:39","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5010435","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5010435","identity":"rs-5010435","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}