Difficulty envisioning a positive future: Secondary analyses in patients in intensive care who are communication vulnerable

Instrument adaptation and preliminary validation study of the Laryngeal Hypersensitivity Questionnaire used for assessment of laryngeal symptoms in patients with artificial airways

BACKGROUND

The Newcastle Laryngeal Hypersensitivity Questionnaire (LHQ) was developed to measure abnormal laryngeal sensation and was originally validated in a patient sample from otolaryngologic and respiratory outpatient clinics. Modification is needed for patients who are mechanically ventilated via an endotracheal tube or a tracheostomy tube.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to adapt and preliminarily validate a modified version of the LHQ appropriate for nurses and other clinicians to administer in acute hospital settings called the LHQ-Acute (LHQ-A).

METHODS

Internal consistency and construct validity analyses using secondary data from patients at a tertiary teaching hospital who presented with symptoms of laryngeal irritability/hypersensitivity between September 2012 and October 2013 were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 131 patients, most complaining of coughing and dysphonia, with a median age of 58 (interquartile range: 48, 66) years and 29 healthy participants with a median age of 62 (interquartile range: 50, 66) years were analysed. The original LHQ was reduced from 14 questions with responses on a 7-point scale to the LHQ-A containing 13 questions with responses on a 4-point scale. Correlations between items of the LHQ and LHQ-A were similar, and internal consistency was excellent and highly comparable, with Cronbach's alpha = 0.906 and 0.902, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The LHQ-A, which has been adapted for nurses and other clinicians to administer to a critically ill patient population, demonstrated comparable reliability and validity to the original LHQ. Validation of the LHQ-A in independent patient populations from acute settings is necessary to better understand norms and changes during recovery from acute illness.

Communication with mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units: A concept analysis

AIMS

The aim of this study was to perform a concept analysis of communication with mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units and present a preliminary model for communication practice with these patients.

DESIGN

The Im & Meleis approach for concept analysis guided the study.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search was performed in January 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, psycINFO and Scopus, limited to 1998-2022. The main medical subject headings search terms used were artificial respiration, communication and critical care. The search resulted in 10,698 unique references.

REVIEW METHODS

After a blinded review by two authors, 108 references were included. Core concepts and terminology related to communication with mechanically ventilated patients were defined by content analytic methods. The concepts were then grouped into main categories after proposing relationships between them. As a final step, a preliminary model for communication with mechanically ventilated patients was developed.

RESULTS

We identified 39 different phrases to describe the mechanically ventilated patient. A total of 60 relevant concepts describing the communication with mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care were identified. The concepts were categorized into five main categories in a conceptual map. The preliminary model encompasses the unique communication practice when interacting with mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units.

CONCLUSION

Highlighting different perspectives of the communication between mechanically ventilated patients and providers through concept analysis has contributed to a deeper understanding of the phenomena and the complexity of communication when the patients have limited possibilities to express themselves.

IMPACT

A clear definition of concepts is needed in the further development of guidelines and recommendations for patient care in intensive care, as well as in future research. The preliminary model will be tested further.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution, as this is a concept analysis of previous research.

Nurses' experiences of serving as a communication guide and supporting the implementation of a communication intervention in the intensive care unit

PURPOSE

: To explore the experience of serving as a nurse communication guide, supporting the bottom-up implementation of a multi-component communication intervention prototype in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

: The overall frame was Complex Interventions, and the study was conducted within the phenomenological-hermeneutic tradition. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with eight nurse communication guides. Data were analysed using a Ricoeur-inspired interpretation method.

RESULTS

: Two main themes emerged: 1) "The communication intervention components provided overview, a conceptual framework, awareness and room for reflection" and 2) "Being a communication guide illuminated the barriers and challenges of implementation". Furthermore, a comprehensive understanding was established that illuminated experiences throughout the analysis: "An ICU communication intervention has to be adaptable to the specific situation and the double need for individualization but also provide overall guidance".

CONCLUSION

: Findings showed that as communication is inherent to all human beings, it can be difficult to change the communication behaviour of nurses. Therefore, a communication intervention in the intensive care unit must be sensitive to the nurse communication guides' individual communication style. Furthermore, a communication intervention should provide nurse communication guides with overall guidance while at the same time remaining adaptable to the needs of each specific situation.

Interventions to enable communication for adult patients requiring an artificial airway with or without mechanical ventilator support

BACKGROUND

Inability to communicate in a manner that can be understood causes extreme distress for people requiring an artificial airway and has implications for care quality and patient safety. Options for aided communication include non-vocal, speech-generating, and voice-enabling aids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effectiveness of communication aids for people requiring an artificial airway (endotracheal or tracheostomy tube), defined as the proportion of people able to: use a non-vocal communication aid to communicate at least one symptom, need, or preference; or use a voice-enabling communication aid to phonate to produce at least one intelligible word. To assess time to communication/phonation; perceptions of communication; communication quality/success; quality of life; psychological distress; length of stay and costs; and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley version), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), three other databases, and grey literature from inception to 30 July 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, controlled non-randomised parallel group, and before-after studies evaluating communication aids used in adults with an artificial airway.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies (1931 participants) conducted in intensive care units (ICUs). Eight evaluated non-vocal communication aids and three voice-enabling aids. Usual care was the comparator for all. For six studies, this comprised no aid; usual care in the remaining five studies comprised use of various communication aids. Overall, our confidence in results regarding effectiveness of communication interventions was very low due to imprecision, measurement heterogeneity, inconsistency in results, and most studies at high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. No non-vocal aid studies reported our primary outcome. We are uncertain of the effects of early use of a voice-enabling aid compared to routine use on ability to phonate at least one intelligible word (risk ratio (RR) 3.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 50.08; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care without aids, we are uncertain about effects of a non-vocal aid (communication board) on patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD) 2.92, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.33; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies of non-vocal aids reported quality of life. Low-certainty evidence from two studies suggests early use of a voice-enabling aid may have no effect on quality of life (MD 2.27, 95% CI -7.21 to 11.75). Conceptual differences in measures of psychological distress precluded data pooling; however, intervention arm participants reported less distress suggesting there might be benefit, but our certainty in the evidence is very low. Low-certainty evidence suggest voice-enabling aids have little or no effect on ICU length of stay; we were unable to determine effects of non-vocal aids. Three studies reported different adverse events (physical restraint use, bleeding following tracheostomy, and respiratory parameters indicating respiratory decompensation). Adverse event rates were similar between arms in all three studies. However, uncertainty remains as to any harm associated with communication aids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to a lack of high-quality studies, imprecision, inconsistency of results, and measurement heterogeneity,  the evidence provides insufficient information to guide practice as to which communication aid is more appropriate and when to use them. Understanding effectiveness of communication aids would benefit from development of a core outcome measurement set.