Review: Communication with invasive mechanically ventilated patients and the use of alternative devices: integrative review.

Abstract

Throughout my career as an intensive care nurse communication with my patient was a prerequisite of all of the care that was undertaken throughout the day. This dated back to my time working within a rehabilitation hospital, where communicating what was wrong, what the treatment was, when the intervention/rehabilitation was going to happen and what level of cooperative work was required from the patient, was almost a natural reflex. This was further ingrained through experience and from two standout lectures, given early into my nursing studies and postgraduate training in critical care – that all patients need disclosure, compassion and to be treated with the level of empathy one would give to a relative. It struck me when reading the reviewed study that I had always presumed that mechanically ventilated patients were communicated to by healthcare professionals throughout their time in intensive care. This presumption was based on the fact that this was what I did. It was based on the fact that this was the example I set when in my educator role, shift lead and managerial role. It was the example set by the majority of critical care nurses I worked with. However, two-way communication for sedated, lightly sedated and awake ventilated patients for all patients was not something that was guaranteed to be the priority that the reviewed study suggests it needs to be. As outlined in the paper, according to a study investigating patients’ experiences in the intensive care unit (ICU) by Alasad et al. (2015), ‘64% of patients wished they knew more about their health status progress in ICU, reflecting that the majority of IMV patient communication with nurses was brief and directed towards informing them about procedures rather than providing an explanation regarding their health condition’.