Comparison of communication interfaces for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care

• Published in: Intensive & critical care nursing Vol. 80; p. 103562
• Main Authors: Szymkowicz, Emilie, Bodet-Contentin, Laetitia, Marechal, Yoann, Ehrmann, Stephan
• Format: Journal Article Web Resource
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Ltd 01.02.2024; Elsevier Limited; Elsevier BV
• Subjects: Alternative communication; Anesthesia; Clinical medicine; Communication; Communication board; Consent; Critical Care; Critical Care Nursing; Cross-Over Studies; Eye movements; Eye tracking; Hospitals; Human health sciences; Humans; Intensive care; Intensive care unit; Intensive Care Units; Interfaces; Intervention; Mechanical ventilation; Medical personnel; Mixed methods research; Ostomy; Patient satisfaction; Patient-centered care; Patients; Professional ethics; Prospective Studies; Public health, health care sciences & services; Respiration, Artificial - adverse effects; Santé publique, services médicaux & soins de santé; Sciences de la santé humaine; Success; Tracking; Ventilators; Verbal communication; Communication board; Alternative communication; Mechanical ventilation; Eye tracking; Intensive care unit
• ISSN: 0964-3397; 1532-4036; 1532-4036
• DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2023.103562

This study aimed to compare the use of a conventional low-tech communication board and a high-tech eye tracking device to improve communication effectiveness of mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care. A prospective randomized crossover was conducted with a mixed method approach (quantitative primary method and qualitative complementary method) to compare the two technologically opposed communication interfaces. The mechanically ventilated patients were recruited from the general intensive care unit of the Marie Curie Civil Hospital (Charleroi University Hospital, Belgium). The communication exchanges were assessed through effectiveness indicators covering the quantity of messages transmitted, success rate, patient satisfaction, communication content and difficulties of use. The sample consisted of 44 mechanically ventilated patients, covering 88 communication exchanges. The intervention effects on the quantity of messages transmitted (two median messages per exchange for the board versus four median messages per exchange for the eye tracking, p < 0.0001), success rate (80 % for the board versus 100 % for the eye tracking, p < 0.05) and patient satisfaction (66 % “not satisfied”, 32 % “satisfied” and 2 % “dissatisfied” for the board versus 52 % “satisfied” and 48 % “very satisfied” for the eye tracking, p < 0.0001) were significant. The communication content covered eight themes for the board compared to nine themes for the eye tracking and the use difficulties included four categories for the board as well as for the eye tracking. The eye tracking device may further improve communication effectiveness of mechanically ventilated patients compared to the conventional communication board, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The implementation of high-tech communication devices based on eye tracking in intensive care practice can significantly contribute to patient-centered care by improving communication of mechanically ventilated patients.