ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2018
[Assessment of the ICU stay from the point of view of patients and their relatives].
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Open-Door ICU Model and Humanized Care: A Systematic Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe quality of care is a key aspect in the gene- ral hospital setting and particularly in ICU. The objective of this study was to analyze the assessment of ICU stay by patients and relatives, as well as the influence of socio-demographic/psychological variables on this assessment.
methods71 critically ill patients and 89 relatives answered the Questionnaire of the ICU stay assessment and the Hospital Anxiety-Depression Scale. Descriptive and frequency analyzes were performed. Likewise, correlation coefficients (Pearson/ Spearman), Student's t test, ANOVA analysis and multiple regression equations were used.
resultsResults show a positive evaluation in patients, both globally (Mean=4,06; SD=1,25) and in relation to different and inherent to ICU aspects, highlighting the attention/care of professionals (Mean=4,73; SD=0,68). As unpleasant/annoying aspects, they show the scarce possibilities of distraction (Mean=2,41; SD=1,38), lack of silence (Mean=3,15; SD=1,19) and visits policy (Mean=3,66; SD=1,04). Families evaluate globally the patient stay in ICU as “something” pleasant (Mean=3,31; SD=1,76). They also assess most aspects of the unit positively and underline the care/attention of professionals and the attention to psycho- logical needs. The valuation of the ICU stay shows differences in some aspects on the basis of socio-demographic variables. Likewise, family assesses more negatively the patient stay in ICU than patients do.
conclusionsThe general evaluation of the ICU stay was positive, although with aspects susceptible to be improved. To know this reality is the prior step to the implementation of those measures that reinforce the well-valued issues and improve the worst- valued aspects in order to optimize the quality of the offered care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29845975PMC11587343What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.