> A brief literature search found the following
> "there is no evidence to support the continuing use of mist therapy in
> inpatient environments." (Macdonald 1997).
> What is current practice and is it based on evidence or is it ritualistic
> continuance of a 19th century practice?
My *opinion* is that it is ritualistic practice. I've looked for evidence
on this in the past and have also found the same small study that
showed no benefit. Our province's pediatric hospital has junked its
"croup tents", and other hospitals I've worked at have rarely if ever
used them. Normally inspired air is pretty well saturated with water
when passing over the nasal/oral mucosa. This assumes that the
child is well-hydrated - which may not be the case. But hydrating
the child would be - again, my opinion - more humane than putting
them in one of these things. The principal lesion is due to
inflammation and edema - so I don't see how mist "therapy" would
be of any benefit. Corticosteroids and epi address the lesion.
Water doesn't.
*******************************
Randy Trinkle, BScPharm BA
Geriatric and ambulatory care
Civic Health Centre
Vancouver, BC
Health Science Links:
http://www.pacificcoast.net/~rtrinkle
mailto:[log in to unmask]
********************************
I finally figured it out. If someone asks me if I'm
having a bad day it doesn't have anything to do with how
I actually feel. It's because they just found out that
they can't have what they want.
|