16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Barriers to and facilitators for supporting patient communication in the adult ICU during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A qualitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          To explore barriers to and facilitators for supporting communication with and for patients treated with invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

          Design

          A qualitative descriptive study reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.

          Methods

          Adult intensive care unit patients treated with an advanced airway for mechanical ventilation, their family members and healthcare providers (nurses, intensivists and allied health) were recruited for interviews between January and April 2021. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis methods. Reported communication barriers and facilitators were mapped to the theoretical framework of acceptability to identify potentially modifiable clinical and institutional practices.

          Results

          We recruited 29 participants (20 healthcare providers, four patients and five family member). Provider communication barriers included isolation procedures, lack of personal protective equipment and inadequate communication tools/training, which reduced perceived communication frequency and effectiveness. Patients and families reported infrequent proactive provision of communication tools, which contributed to a crisis of unmet needs. Reported facilitators included adequate access to personal protective equipment to mitigate the risk of patient proximity and communication tools/training to improve communication effectiveness. Authentic unit leadership helped to assuage pandemic work stressors and encourage humanistic care. Our analysis indicates low acceptability of existing communication practices during the COVID‐19 pandemic and the importance of leadership to reduce the burden of communication through provision of key necessary resources.

          Conclusion

          COVID‐19 conditions have precipitated a communication crisis in the ICU. The results of this study have practice and policy implications and will be used to co‐design a communication intervention for use during and beyond the COVID‐19 pandemic.

          Impact

          The study contributes a better understanding of resources necessary to support patient communication. Results apply beyond the pandemic to routine use of infection prevention and control precautions in the intensive care unit.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework

            Background It is increasingly acknowledged that ‘acceptability’ should be considered when designing, evaluating and implementing healthcare interventions. However, the published literature offers little guidance on how to define or assess acceptability. The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-construct theoretical framework of acceptability of healthcare interventions that can be applied to assess prospective (i.e. anticipated) and retrospective (i.e. experienced) acceptability from the perspective of intervention delivers and recipients. Methods Two methods were used to select the component constructs of acceptability. 1) An overview of reviews was conducted to identify systematic reviews that claim to define, theorise or measure acceptability of healthcare interventions. 2) Principles of inductive and deductive reasoning were applied to theorise the concept of acceptability and develop a theoretical framework. Steps included (1) defining acceptability; (2) describing its properties and scope and (3) identifying component constructs and empirical indicators. Results From the 43 reviews included in the overview, none explicitly theorised or defined acceptability. Measures used to assess acceptability focused on behaviour (e.g. dropout rates) (23 reviews), affect (i.e. feelings) (5 reviews), cognition (i.e. perceptions) (7 reviews) or a combination of these (8 reviews). From the methods described above we propose a definition: Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) consists of seven component constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Conclusion Despite frequent claims that healthcare interventions have assessed acceptability, it is evident that acceptability research could be more robust. The proposed definition of acceptability and the TFA can inform assessment tools and evaluations of the acceptability of new or existing interventions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                laura.istanboulian@utoronto.ca , @Laura_lista
                @Craig_dale1
                Journal
                J Adv Nurs
                J Adv Nurs
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2648
                JAN
                Journal of Advanced Nursing
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0309-2402
                1365-2648
                09 March 2022
                09 March 2022
                : 10.1111/jan.15212
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 2 ] Michael Garron Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 3 ] Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care King's College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building London UK
                [ 4 ] Lane Fox Clinical Respiratory Physiology Research Centre, St Thomas' Hospital, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust London UK
                [ 5 ] Department of Speech Language Pathology University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 6 ] Toronto Rehabilitation Institute University Health Network Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 7 ] Harvitz Brain Sciences Program Sunnybrook Research Institute Wellness Way Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 8 ] Tory Trauma Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Toronto Ontario Canada
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Laura Istanboulian, Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, Canada.

                Email: laura.istanboulian@ 123456utoronto.ca

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8831-587X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1700-3972
                Article
                JAN15212 JAN-2021-2359.R1
                10.1111/jan.15212
                9111498
                35266178
                58cc510a-9ea0-42f1-9fc6-375a049fd7af
                © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 31 January 2022
                : 16 December 2021
                : 22 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Pages: 13, Words: 7939
                Funding
                Funded by: Bertha Rosenstadt Health Research Fund
                Award ID: No grant number associated
                Funded by: Bluma Appel and Jeannie Butler Graduate Award in Nursing
                Funded by: Canadian Nurses Foundation , doi 10.13039/100009271;
                Funded by: Mary Kathleen King Graduate Award
                Funded by: Michael Garron Hospital TD Community Health Fund Solutions for COVID‐19 Research Grant
                Funded by: Staples Family Graduate Student Award in Nursing
                Categories
                Original Research: Empirical Research ‐ Qualitative
                Original Research: Empirical Research ‐ Qualitative
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.6 mode:remove_FC converted:17.05.2022

                Nursing
                Nursing

                Comments

                Comment on this article