Nipuna R Kuruppu, Wendy Chaboyer, Georgia Tobiano, Anuja Abayadeera, Kristen Ranse
{"title":"在斯里兰卡一家医院的重症监护病房实施交流板改善机械通气患者交流互动的可行性--随机对照试验。","authors":"Nipuna R Kuruppu, Wendy Chaboyer, Georgia Tobiano, Anuja Abayadeera, Kristen Ranse","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility of implementing a communication board in intensive care units in terms of participant recruitment and retention, intervention fidelity, and ability to collect patient outcome data.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A prospective, two-arm, unblinded, pilot randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Research methodology: </strong>Adult, conscious, mechanically ventilated intensive care patients were recruited between August and November 2023. All participants received routine communication practices; the intervention group also received the communication board. Prior to the study, all nurses were trained on using the communication board. Patient or proxy consent was obtained. Data were collected from patients, nurses, patients' medical records, and screening, tracking, intervention fidelity, and contamination logs.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome data was feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and intervention fidelity, which was recorded daily until seven days of follow-up or pre-defined trial endpoints. Secondary patient outcomes (anxiety, satisfaction, ease of communication) were assessed at recruitment and approximately 24 h after recruitment or soon after extubation, whichever occurred first.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Two intensive care units in one Sri Lankan tertiary care hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 123 patients, 60 (75.0%) were recruited and randomised (30 control; 30 intervention). All intervention group patients received the communication board (100% intervention fidelity), and 58 (96.7%) completed the follow-up. On recruitment, 12.5% of secondary patient outcome data was missing, and 9.9% on follow-up, predominantly associated with the 10-item ease of communication scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conducting a larger, definitive communication board trial is feasible but collecting secondary patient outcome data, especially ease of communication was challenging. Study procedures need to be refined prior to a larger trial.</p><p><strong>Implications for clinical practice: </strong>The use of communication boards in intensive care units may improve patient-centred care for ventilated patients but requires further, high quality effectiveness trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":94043,"journal":{"name":"Intensive & critical care nursing","volume":"87 ","pages":"103891"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility of implementing a communication board to improve communication interactions of mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units at one Sri Lankan hospital - A pilot randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Nipuna R Kuruppu, Wendy Chaboyer, Georgia Tobiano, Anuja Abayadeera, Kristen Ranse\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103891\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility of implementing a communication board in intensive care units in terms of participant recruitment and retention, intervention fidelity, and ability to collect patient outcome data.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A prospective, two-arm, unblinded, pilot randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Research methodology: </strong>Adult, conscious, mechanically ventilated intensive care patients were recruited between August and November 2023. All participants received routine communication practices; the intervention group also received the communication board. Prior to the study, all nurses were trained on using the communication board. Patient or proxy consent was obtained. Data were collected from patients, nurses, patients' medical records, and screening, tracking, intervention fidelity, and contamination logs.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome data was feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and intervention fidelity, which was recorded daily until seven days of follow-up or pre-defined trial endpoints. Secondary patient outcomes (anxiety, satisfaction, ease of communication) were assessed at recruitment and approximately 24 h after recruitment or soon after extubation, whichever occurred first.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Two intensive care units in one Sri Lankan tertiary care hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 123 patients, 60 (75.0%) were recruited and randomised (30 control; 30 intervention). All intervention group patients received the communication board (100% intervention fidelity), and 58 (96.7%) completed the follow-up. On recruitment, 12.5% of secondary patient outcome data was missing, and 9.9% on follow-up, predominantly associated with the 10-item ease of communication scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conducting a larger, definitive communication board trial is feasible but collecting secondary patient outcome data, especially ease of communication was challenging. Study procedures need to be refined prior to a larger trial.</p><p><strong>Implications for clinical practice: </strong>The use of communication boards in intensive care units may improve patient-centred care for ventilated patients but requires further, high quality effectiveness trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intensive & critical care nursing\",\"volume\":\"87 \",\"pages\":\"103891\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intensive & critical care nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103891\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive & critical care nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103891","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Feasibility of implementing a communication board to improve communication interactions of mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units at one Sri Lankan hospital - A pilot randomised controlled trial.
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of implementing a communication board in intensive care units in terms of participant recruitment and retention, intervention fidelity, and ability to collect patient outcome data.
Design: A prospective, two-arm, unblinded, pilot randomised controlled trial.
Research methodology: Adult, conscious, mechanically ventilated intensive care patients were recruited between August and November 2023. All participants received routine communication practices; the intervention group also received the communication board. Prior to the study, all nurses were trained on using the communication board. Patient or proxy consent was obtained. Data were collected from patients, nurses, patients' medical records, and screening, tracking, intervention fidelity, and contamination logs.
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome data was feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and intervention fidelity, which was recorded daily until seven days of follow-up or pre-defined trial endpoints. Secondary patient outcomes (anxiety, satisfaction, ease of communication) were assessed at recruitment and approximately 24 h after recruitment or soon after extubation, whichever occurred first.
Setting: Two intensive care units in one Sri Lankan tertiary care hospital.
Results: Of the 123 patients, 60 (75.0%) were recruited and randomised (30 control; 30 intervention). All intervention group patients received the communication board (100% intervention fidelity), and 58 (96.7%) completed the follow-up. On recruitment, 12.5% of secondary patient outcome data was missing, and 9.9% on follow-up, predominantly associated with the 10-item ease of communication scale.
Conclusions: Conducting a larger, definitive communication board trial is feasible but collecting secondary patient outcome data, especially ease of communication was challenging. Study procedures need to be refined prior to a larger trial.
Implications for clinical practice: The use of communication boards in intensive care units may improve patient-centred care for ventilated patients but requires further, high quality effectiveness trials.