Evaluation of the sensory environment in a large tertiary ICU

BACKGROUND

ICU survival is improving. However, many patients leave ICU with ongoing cognitive, physical, and/or psychological impairments and reduced quality of life. Many of the reasons for these ongoing problems are unmodifiable; however, some are linked with the ICU environment. Suboptimal lighting and excessive noise contribute to a loss of circadian rhythms and sleep disruptions, leading to increased mortality and morbidity. Despite long-standing awareness of these problems, meaningful ICU redesign is yet to be realised, and the 'ideal' ICU design is likely to be unique to local context and patient cohorts. To inform the co-design of an improved ICU environment, this study completed a detailed evaluation of the ICU environment, focussing on acoustics, sound, and light.

METHODS

This was an observational study of the lighting and acoustic environment using sensors and formal evaluations. Selected bedspaces, chosen to represent different types of bedspaces in the ICU, were monitored during prolonged study periods. Data were analysed descriptively using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Two of the three monitored bedspaces showed a limited difference in lighting levels across the day, with average daytime light intensity not exceeding 300 Lux. In bedspaces with a window, the spectral power distribution (but not intensity) of the light was similar to natural light when all ceiling lights were off. However, when the ceiling lights were on, the spectral power distribution was similar between bedspaces with and without windows. Average sound levels in the study bedspaces were 63.75, 56.80, and 59.71 dBA, with the single room being noisier than the two open-plan bedspaces. There were multiple occasions of peak sound levels > 80 dBA recorded, with the maximum sound level recorded being > 105 dBA. We recorded one new monitor or ventilator alarm commencing every 69 s in each bedspace, with only 5% of alarms actioned. Acoustic testing showed poor sound absorption and blocking.

CONCLUSIONS

This study corroborates other studies confirming that the lighting and acoustic environments in the study ICU were suboptimal, potentially contributing to adverse patient outcomes. This manuscript discusses potential solutions to identified problems. Future studies are required to evaluate whether an optimised ICU environment positively impacts patient outcomes.

Doing time in an Australian ICU; the experience and environment from the perspective of patients and family members

BACKGROUND

The intensive care environment and experiences during admission can negatively impact patient and family outcomes and can complicate recovery both in hospital and after discharge. While their perspectives based on intimate experiences of the environment could help inform design improvements, patients and their families are typically not involved in design processes. Rather than designing the environment around the needs of the patients, emphasis has traditionally been placed on clinical and economic efficiencies.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective was to inform design of an optimised intensive care bedspace by developing an understanding of how patients and their families experience the intensive care environment and its impact on recovery.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study was conducted with data collected in interviews with 17 intensive care patients and seven family members at a large cardiothoracic specialist hospital, analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Participants described the intensive care as a noisy, bright, confronting and scary environment that prevented sleep and was suboptimal for recovery. Bedspaces were described as small and cluttered, with limited access to natural light or cognitive stimulation. The limited ability to personalise the environment and maintain connections with family and the outside world was considered especially problematic.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive care patients described features of the current environment they considered problematic and potentially hindering their recovery. The perspective of patients and their families can be utilised by researchers and developers to improve the design and function of the intensive care environment. This can potentially improve patient outcomes and help deliver more personalised and effective care to this vulnerable patient population and their families.

The intensive care unit environment from the perspective of medical, allied health and nursing clinicians: A qualitative study to inform design of the 'ideal' bedspace

BACKGROUND

While the impact of the intensive care environment on patients' experiences and outcomes has been extensively studied, relatively little research has examined the impact on clinicians and their provision of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Understanding staff experience and views about the environment is needed to optimise the ICU environment, patient outcomes and staff wellbeing.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to inform design of an optimised intensive care bedspace by describing clinicians' views about the current environment, including experience, impact on performance of clinical duties, and experience and outcomes of patients and family members.

METHODS

A pragmatic, qualitative descriptive study was conducted, with data collected in focus groups and interviews with 30 intensive care clinicians at a large cardiothoracic specialist hospital and analysed using the framework approach.

RESULTS

Participants acknowledged that the busy and noisy ICU provided a suboptimal healing environment for patients, was confronting for visiting families and exposed clinicians to risk of psychological injury. The bedspace, described as small and cluttered, hindered provision of clinical care of various kinds and contributed to an increased risk of staff physical injuries. Participants noted that the bland, sterile environment, devoid of natural light and views of the outside world, negatively affected both staff and patients' mood and motivation. Aware of the potential benefits of natural light, cognitive stimulation and visually appealing environments for patients and families, clinicians were frustrated by their inability to personalise the bedspace. Some participants, while acknowledging the importance of family contact for patients, were concerned about the impact of visitors on care delivery, particularly within already crowded bedspaces, suggesting restrictions on visiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive care clinicians perceive that the current intensive care environment is suboptimal for patients, their families and staff and may contribute to suboptimal patient outcomes. The intensive care bedspaces need to be redesigned to ensure they are built around the needs of the people using them. Optimisation is dependent on engaging all stakeholders in future design processes.