↓ Skip to main content

Communicating with conscious and mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
149 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
362 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Communicating with conscious and mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a systematic review
Published in
Critical Care, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1483-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. ten Hoorn, P. W. Elbers, A. R. Girbes, P. R. Tuinman

Abstract

Ventilator-dependent patients in the ICU often experience difficulties with one of the most basic human functions, namely communication, due to intubation. Although various assistive communication tools exist, these are infrequently used in ICU patients. We summarized the current evidence on communication methods with mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. Secondly, we developed an algorithm for communication with these patients based on current evidence. We performed a systematic review. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl, PsychInfo, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched to November 2015. Studies that reported a communication intervention with conscious nonverbal mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU aged 18 years or older were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool. The search yielded 9883 publications, of which 31 articles, representing 29 different studies, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality varied from poor to moderate. We identified four communication intervention types: (1) communication boards were studied in three studies-they improved communication and increased patient satisfaction, but they can be time-consuming and limit the ability to produce novel utterances; (2) two types of specialized talking tracheostomy tubes were assessed in eight studies-audible voicing was achieved in the majority of patients (range 74-100 %), but more studies are needed to facilitate safe and effective use; (3) an electrolarynx improved communication in seven studies-its effectiveness was mainly demonstrated with tracheostomized patients; and (4) "high-tech" augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices in nine studies with diverse computerized AAC devices proved to be beneficial communication methods-two studies investigated multiple AAC interventions, and different control devices (e.g., touch-sensitive or eye/blink detection) can be used to ensure that physical limitations do not prevent use of the devices. We developed an algorithm for the assessment and selection of a communication intervention with nonverbal and conscious mechanically intubated patients in the ICU. Although evidence is limited, results suggest that most communication methods may be effective in improving patient-healthcare professional communication with mechanically ventilated patients. A combination of methods is advised. We developed an algorithm to standardize the approach for selection of communication techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 149 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 362 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 359 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 17%
Student > Bachelor 43 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 8%
Other 26 7%
Researcher 22 6%
Other 68 19%
Unknown 113 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 108 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 80 22%
Unspecified 11 3%
Social Sciences 9 2%
Neuroscience 5 1%
Other 24 7%
Unknown 125 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2022.
All research outputs
#462,779
of 25,709,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#267
of 6,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,830
of 324,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,709,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.