Maurizio A Miglietta1, Grant Bochicchio, Thomas M Scalea. 1. Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, New York University School of Medicine, Bellevue Hospital Center, Trauma Services, New York, New York, USA. maurizio.miglietta@med.nyu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critically ill nonverbal patients often have limited means of communication through eye-blinking, communication cards, and occasionally writing. We evaluated a novel computer communication device to determine its clinical utility as an alternative form of communication between patients and hospital staff. METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study to evaluate a communication system (LifeVoice) for intubated nonverbal trauma patients. Patients and hospital staff completed questionnaires regarding product satisfaction and utility on days 1, 3, and 7. RESULTS: Patients (n = 35) felt the system assisted them in obtaining their needs (>90%). Hospital staff (n = 42) felt the device improved patient care (96%) and comfort (91%). CONCLUSION: The system evaluated offers an effective alternative to traditional means of communication in the intensive care unit. Computer-assisted communication improves patient comfort and allows advanced patient participation in medical care. Further studies will determine whether this modality objectively improves patient care by promoting a higher degree of safety and reducing medical errors.
BACKGROUND:Critically ill nonverbal patients often have limited means of communication through eye-blinking, communication cards, and occasionally writing. We evaluated a novel computer communication device to determine its clinical utility as an alternative form of communication between patients and hospital staff. METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study to evaluate a communication system (LifeVoice) for intubated nonverbal traumapatients. Patients and hospital staff completed questionnaires regarding product satisfaction and utility on days 1, 3, and 7. RESULTS:Patients (n = 35) felt the system assisted them in obtaining their needs (>90%). Hospital staff (n = 42) felt the device improved patient care (96%) and comfort (91%). CONCLUSION: The system evaluated offers an effective alternative to traditional means of communication in the intensive care unit. Computer-assisted communication improves patient comfort and allows advanced patient participation in medical care. Further studies will determine whether this modality objectively improves patient care by promoting a higher degree of safety and reducing medical errors.
Authors: Theresa H Brunner; Kristyn DiFortuna; Michael LeTang; Jane Murphy; Kara Stemplewicz; Magda Kovacs; Antonio P DeRosa; Donna S Gibson; Pamela K Ginex Journal: J Perianesth Nurs Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 1.084
Authors: Carmen S Rodriguez; Meredeth Rowe; Loris Thomas; Jonathan Shuster; Brent Koeppel; Paula Cairns Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Mary Beth Happ; Kathryn L Garrett; Judith A Tate; Dana DiVirgilio; Martin P Houze; Jill R Demirci; Elisabeth George; Susan M Sereika Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Marci L Nilsen; Susan M Sereika; Leslie A Hoffman; Amber Barnato; Heidi Donovan; Mary Beth Happ Journal: Res Gerontol Nurs Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 1.571
Authors: Carmen S Rodriguez; Meredeth Rowe; Brent Koeppel; Loris Thomas; Michelle S Troche; Glenna Paguio Journal: Technol Health Care Date: 2012 Impact factor: 1.285