Mary Beth Happ1, Kathryn L Garrett2, Judith A Tate3, Dana DiVirgilio3, Martin P Houze3, Jill R Demirci4, Elisabeth George5, Susan M Sereika3. 1. University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; University of Pittsburgh Department of Critical Care Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; The Ohio State University College of Nursing. Electronic address: happ.3@osu.edu. 2. Alternative Communication, LLC. 3. University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine/Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh General Academic Pediatrics, USA. 5. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Department of Nursing, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of two levels of intervention on communication frequency, quality, success, and ease between nurses and intubated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, 3-phase sequential cohort study: (1) usual care, (2) basic communication skills training (BCST) for nurses, (3) additional training in augmentative and alternative communication devices and speech language pathologist consultation (AAC + SLP). Trained observers rated four 3-min video-recordings for each nurse-patient dyad for communication frequency, quality and success. Patients self-rated communication ease. SETTING: Two ICUs in a university-affiliated medical center. PARTICIPANTS: 89 intubated patients awake, responsive and unable to speak and 30 ICU nurses. MAIN RESULTS: Communication frequency (mean number of communication acts within a communication exchange) and positive nurse communication behaviors increased significantly in one ICU only. Percentage of successful communication exchanges about pain were greater for the two intervention groups than the usual care/control group across both ICUs (p = .03) with more successful sessions about pain and other symptoms in the AAC + SLP group (p = .07). Patients in the AAC + SLP intervention group used significantly more AAC methods (p = .002) and rated communication at high difficulty less often (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the feasibility, utility and efficacy of a multi-level communication skills training, materials and SLP consultation intervention in the ICU.
OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of two levels of intervention on communication frequency, quality, success, and ease between nurses and intubated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, 3-phase sequential cohort study: (1) usual care, (2) basic communication skills training (BCST) for nurses, (3) additional training in augmentative and alternative communication devices and speech language pathologist consultation (AAC + SLP). Trained observers rated four 3-min video-recordings for each nurse-patient dyad for communication frequency, quality and success. Patients self-rated communication ease. SETTING: Two ICUs in a university-affiliated medical center. PARTICIPANTS: 89 intubated patients awake, responsive and unable to speak and 30 ICU nurses. MAIN RESULTS: Communication frequency (mean number of communication acts within a communication exchange) and positive nurse communication behaviors increased significantly in one ICU only. Percentage of successful communication exchanges about pain were greater for the two intervention groups than the usual care/control group across both ICUs (p = .03) with more successful sessions about pain and other symptoms in the AAC + SLP group (p = .07). Patients in the AAC + SLP intervention group used significantly more AAC methods (p = .002) and rated communication at high difficulty less often (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the feasibility, utility and efficacy of a multi-level communication skills training, materials and SLP consultation intervention in the ICU.
Keywords:
Augmentative and alternative communication; Communication; Critical care; Mechanical ventilation; Nurse–patient communication; Patient–provider communication
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: Mary Beth Happ; Jennifer B Seaman; Marci L Nilsen; Andrea Sciulli; Judith A Tate; Melissa Saul; Amber E Barnato Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Louise Rose; Anna-Liisa Sutt; Andre Carlos Amaral; Dean A Fergusson; Orla M Smith; Craig M Dale Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-12
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: 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: Jean-Louis Vincent; Yahya Shehabi; Timothy S Walsh; Pratik P Pandharipande; Jonathan A Ball; Peter Spronk; Dan Longrois; Thomas Strøm; Giorgio Conti; Georg-Christian Funk; Rafael Badenes; Jean Mantz; Claudia Spies; Jukka Takala Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 17.440