BACKGROUND: The inability to speak during critical illness is a source of distress for patients, yet nurse-patient communication in the intensive care unit has not been systematically studied or measured. OBJECTIVES: To describe communication interactions, methods, and assistive techniques between nurses and nonspeaking critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. METHODS: Descriptive observational study of the nonintervention/usual care cohort from a larger clinical trial of nurse-patient communication in a medical and a cardiothoracic surgical intensive care unit. Videorecorded interactions between 10 randomly selected nurses (5 per unit) and a convenience sample of 30 critically ill adults (15 per unit) who were awake, responsive, and unable to speak because of respiratory tract intubation were rated for frequency, success, quality, communication methods, and assistive communication techniques. Patients self-rated ease of communication. RESULTS: Nurses initiated most (86.2%) of the communication exchanges. Mean rate of completed communication exchange was 2.62 exchanges per minute. The most common positive nurse act was making eye contact with the patient. Although communication exchanges were generally (>70%) successful, more than one-third (37.7%) of communications about pain were unsuccessful. Patients rated 40% of the communication sessions with nurses as somewhat difficult to extremely difficult. Assistive communication strategies were uncommon, with little to no use of assistive communication materials (eg, writing supplies, alphabet or word boards). CONCLUSIONS: Study results highlight specific areas for improvement in communication between nurses and nonspeaking patients in the intensive care unit, particularly in communication about pain and in the use of assistive communication strategies and communication materials.
BACKGROUND: The inability to speak during critical illness is a source of distress for patients, yet nurse-patient communication in the intensive care unit has not been systematically studied or measured. OBJECTIVES: To describe communication interactions, methods, and assistive techniques between nurses and nonspeaking critically illpatients in the intensive care unit. METHODS: Descriptive observational study of the nonintervention/usual care cohort from a larger clinical trial of nurse-patient communication in a medical and a cardiothoracic surgical intensive care unit. Videorecorded interactions between 10 randomly selected nurses (5 per unit) and a convenience sample of 30 critically ill adults (15 per unit) who were awake, responsive, and unable to speak because of respiratory tract intubation were rated for frequency, success, quality, communication methods, and assistive communication techniques. Patients self-rated ease of communication. RESULTS: Nurses initiated most (86.2%) of the communication exchanges. Mean rate of completed communication exchange was 2.62 exchanges per minute. The most common positive nurse act was making eye contact with the patient. Although communication exchanges were generally (>70%) successful, more than one-third (37.7%) of communications about pain were unsuccessful. Patients rated 40% of the communication sessions with nurses as somewhat difficult to extremely difficult. Assistive communication strategies were uncommon, with little to no use of assistive communication materials (eg, writing supplies, alphabet or word boards). CONCLUSIONS: Study results highlight specific areas for improvement in communication between nurses and nonspeaking patients in the intensive care unit, particularly in communication about pain and in the use of assistive communication strategies and communication materials.
Authors: J E Nelson; D E Meier; E J Oei; D M Nierman; R S Senzel; P L Manfredi; S M Davis; R S Morrison Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: E W Ely; S K Inouye; G R Bernard; S Gordon; J Francis; L May; B Truman; T Speroff; S Gautam; R Margolin; R P Hart; R Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Curtis N Sessler; Mark S Gosnell; Mary Jo Grap; Gretchen M Brophy; Pam V O'Neal; Kimberly A Keane; Eljim P Tesoro; R K Elswick Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Armando J Rotondi; Lakshmipathi Chelluri; Carl Sirio; Aaron Mendelsohn; Richard Schulz; Steven Belle; Kelly Im; Michael Donahoe; Michael R Pinsky Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: E Wesley Ely; Brenda Truman; Ayumi Shintani; Jason W W Thomason; Arthur P Wheeler; Sharon Gordon; Joseph Francis; Theodore Speroff; Shiva Gautam; Richard Margolin; Curtis N Sessler; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jennifer B Seaman; Anna C Evans; Andrea M Sciulli; Amber E Barnato; Susan M Sereika; Mary Beth Happ Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Marci Lee Nilsen; Mary Beth Happ; Heidi Donovan; Amber Barnato; Leslie Hoffman; Susan M Sereika Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.381
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: Joel N Berning; Armeen D Poor; Sarah M Buckley; Komal R Patel; David J Lederer; Nathan E Goldstein; Daniel Brodie; Matthew R Baldwin Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-08
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