Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39562429›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2025

Important features of hospitals, intensive care unit waiting rooms, and patient care rooms: perspectives of intensive care unit visitors.

Nishila Mehta, Jennifer Tsang, Erick Duan, Bram Rochwerg, Karen E A Burns, Sumesh Shah, Nanki Ahluwalia, Jocelyn Lau, Sangeeta Mehta

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nishila MehtaDepartment of Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jennifer TsangNiagara Health and Niagara Health Knowledge Institute, Niagara Falls, ON, Canada.
Erick DuanNiagara Health and Niagara Health Knowledge Institute, Niagara Falls, ON, Canada.
Bram RochwergDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Karen E A BurnsDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sumesh ShahInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Nanki AhluwaliaUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Jocelyn LauDepartment of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sangeeta MehtaInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. geeta.mehta@utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-7073-4769

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFamily members of critically ill patients spend significant periods of time in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital environment. We aimed to identify what services, resources, and conveniences are important to adult ICU visitors.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study including visitors in four adult ICUs in the province of Ontario, Canada. In the survey, we asked visitors to rate the importance of 58 items relating to the environment of patient rooms, the waiting room, and hospital facilities. For each item, we gave respondents five categorical response options, from "not at all important" to "extremely important." We used descriptive statistics to analyze the survey results.

resultsWe analyzed 224 surveys completed by ICU visitors (60% female, ages 14-87 yr). Respondents were predominantly children (41%) or the spouse/partner (23%) of adult ICU patients. Nearly half (51%) lived more than 30 km from the hospital, and 30% spent at least one night in the ICU waiting room, with a median of 2 nights (range, 1-20) spent in hospital. Within the hospital environment, the top four items rated as "extremely important" or "very important" were directional signage (82%), convenient parking (80%), discounted parking (80%), and healthy and affordable food (78%). Regarding ICU waiting rooms, 24/7 visitation (92%), convenient restrooms (87%), a water dispenser (83%), and Wi-Fi (80%) were priorities. Features of ICU patient rooms identified as most important included seating for visitors (92%), access to natural light (78%), and access to fresh air (74%).

conclusionsIntensive care unit visitors prioritized pragmatic environmental elements. Many of these modifications are simple and inexpensive but may significantly improve visitors' comfort and experience.

Indexed as

HospitalsIntensive Care UnitsPatients' RoomsVisitors to PatientsWaiting RoomsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFamilyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntariocaregiverscritical careenvironmentintensive care unitpatientsvisitors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.