Observational studyInvestigacion y educacion en enfermeria2019
Quality of Nurses' Communication with Mechanically Ventilated Patients in a Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care Unit.
Observational study in Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nurses' care coordination competence in mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Lived Experiences of Conscious Intubated Patients in the Intensive Care Units: A Qualitative Phenomenological Study in Iran.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Article
- Communication with mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units: A concept analysis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2023Review
- Theoretical definition of nurse-conscious mechanically ventilated patient communication: a scoping review with qualitative content analysis.Acute and critical care · 2023Article
- Patients' perception of medical communication and their needs during the stay in the intensive care unit.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the quality of the relationship between nurses and patients under mechanical ventilation.
methodsThis observational study, performed in a cardiac surgery intensive care unit in Iran, selected 10 nurses and 35 patients through simple random and convenience sampling, respectively. One of the researchers observed 175 communications between nurses and patients in different work shifts and recorded the results according to a checklist. Nurse and patient satisfaction with the communication was assessed by using a six-item Likert scale, 8 to 12 h after extubation.
resultsMost of the patients were male (77.1%), while most of the nurses were female (60%). Patients started over 75% of the communications observed. The content of the communication was related mostly to physical needs and pain. Besides, the majority of patients used purposeful stares and hand gestures, and head nod for communication. Most of the communications between patients and nurses were satisfied 'very low' (45.7% in nurses, versus 54.3% in patients). However, 'complete satisfaction' was lower in nurses (0%), compared with patients (5.7%). No statistically significant correlation was found between patients' and nurses' satisfaction and demographic variables.
conclusionsThe results showed that communication between nurses and mechanically ventilated patients was built through traditional methods and was based on the patients' requests. This issue might be the cause of an undesirable level of their satisfaction with the communication, given that effective communication can lead to understanding and meeting the needs of the patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.