Inhalation injury is one of the most feared complications of major burns. Hot gases and toxic smoke damage the delicate lining of the airway, causing swelling, secretions, and progressive respiratory failure that can develop over hours. For these patients, an artificial airway, typically a tube placed through the mouth or nose into the trachea, or a surgical opening in the neck, is often a life-saving necessity. But the tube itself introduces new risks: it can become blocked by thick secretions, dislodged, or colonized by bacteria leading to ventilator-associated pneumonia. The quality of day-to-day airway management, from humidification and suctioning to cuff pressure monitoring and secure fixation, therefore has a direct bearing on survival and recovery.

The research team, led by Fangfang Xia and colleagues in the hospital’s Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, set out to measure how well artificial airway management was actually being delivered in their burn intensive care unit, and to identify which patient characteristics and staff-related factors predicted lapses in quality. They combined two complementary data streams. First, they performed a retrospective analysis of clinical records from all 223 patients admitted to the burn ICU between January and December 2025 who had burn injuries combined with inhalation injuries. The variables they extracted included sex, age, the total body surface area burned (TBSA), whether the patient developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the timing of artificial airway establishment, and any airway-related complications that occurred during the stay.

Second, recognizing that airway management is fundamentally a nursing-delivered intervention, the team surveyed 49 nursing staff members about their clinical experience, whether they had received formal airway management training, how often they attended training sessions each year, and how they documented their care. This dual approach, pairing patient outcomes with staff characteristics, allowed the investigators to look beyond the bedside and ask whether the structure of the care team itself shaped the quality of what patients received. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional ethics committee and adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, with all participants providing informed consent.

The headline numbers reveal a system that performs reasonably well but leaves meaningful room for improvement. The timely airway establishment rate, meaning the proportion of patients who received an artificial airway within the clinically appropriate window, stood at 82.1 percent. Overall quality compliance, a measure of how consistently management met established standards, reached 73.5 percent. In other words, roughly one in four patients did not receive airway care that fully met quality benchmarks, and nearly one in five did not have their airway established in a timely fashion. For a population in which respiratory compromise can escalate within hours, those gaps are clinically significant.

To move from description to explanation, the researchers performed multivariable logistic regression, a statistical technique that estimates the independent effect of each factor while holding the others constant. Five factors emerged as significant independent predictors of suboptimal airway management quality, all with P values below 0.05. Three were patient-related: a total body surface area burned of 60 percent or more, the concurrent development of ARDS, and delayed establishment of the artificial airway. Two were staff-related and, crucially, modifiable: nursing experience of less than three years, and an annual training frequency of fewer than two sessions.

The patient-related predictors make physiological sense. Patients with burns covering 60 percent or more of their body surface face massive fluid shifts, profound inflammatory responses, and prolonged immobility, all of which complicate airway care and increase the burden of secretions and edema. Those who develop ARDS require prolonged mechanical ventilation with high pressures and oxygen concentrations, which stresses every component of airway maintenance. And delayed airway establishment is both a marker of deteriorating physiology and a contributor to it: a patient whose swollen airway is intubated late may be harder to intubate safely, may accumulate aspirated secretions, and may start the course of artificial airway care from a worse baseline.

It is the two staff-related findings, however, that carry the clearest practical message, because they are the ones an institution can change. Nurses with less than three years of experience were significantly more likely to be involved in suboptimal airway management, suggesting that the skills required, precise suctioning technique, correct cuff pressure management, early recognition of tube obstruction or displacement, and sound clinical judgment about secretion load, are accumulated through years of bedside practice. Equally telling, nurses who attended fewer than two training sessions per year were at higher risk of suboptimal care. The message is that competency in artificial airway management is not a one-time credential but a perishable skill that decays without regular reinforcement.

The authors also observed that where quality fell short, it tended to manifest as inconsistent protocol adherence and incomplete documentation, rather than as dramatic single-point failures. This pattern is common in intensive care: the difference between adequate and excellent care often lies in the accumulation of small, unglamorous tasks performed correctly and recorded properly, shift after shift. Documentation matters not only for continuity between clinicians but also as a quality-control signal, since gaps in the record make it harder for teams to detect drifting practice standards before they produce complications.

Based on their findings, the researchers recommend a package of institutional reforms: risk stratification frameworks that flag patients with extensive burns or evolving ARDS for intensified airway surveillance; standardized assessment tools that make protocol adherence measurable rather than assumed; tiered, competency-based training programs that ensure less experienced nurses receive structured skill-building and that all staff receive training at least twice a year; and strengthened multidisciplinary collaboration between burn surgeons, intensivists, and nursing teams. The study, funded by Ningxia Medical University, is retrospective and conducted at a single center, so the authors’ results describe one institution’s experience rather than a universal benchmark. But the structure of the findings, that injury severity sets the stage while training and timing determine execution, offers a concrete, testable template for other burn units. In a field where the airway is quite literally the difference between breathing and not, the suggestion that two of the five decisive factors are as simple as experience and regular training is a conclusion worth acting on.

Subject of Research: Quality of artificial airway management and its modifiable predictors in burn patients with inhalation injury

Article Title: Quality of artificial airway management and its modifiable predictors in burn patients with inhalation injury: a retrospective cohort study

Article References: Xia, F., You, X., Zhou, X., Yao, M., & Yan, R. (2026). Quality of artificial airway management and its modifiable predictors in burn patients with inhalation injury: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-026-05433-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12912-026-05433-x

Keywords: burn injury, inhalation injury, artificial airway management, nursing quality, ARDS, TBSA, nurse training, retrospective cohort study, burn intensive care, airway complications, protocol adherence, documentation