Comparison of communication interfaces for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care

Emilie Szymkowicz; Laetitia Bodet-Contentin; Yoann Marechal; Stephan Ehrmann

doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2023.103562

Comparison of communication interfaces for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care

Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2024 Feb:80:103562. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2023.103562. Epub 2023 Oct 21.

Authors

Emilie Szymkowicz¹, Laetitia Bodet-Contentin², Yoann Marechal³, Stephan Ehrmann⁴

Affiliations

¹ GIGA Consciousness, Coma Science Group, University of Liège, Belgium. Electronic address: emilie.szymkowicz@uliege.be.
² Médecine Intensive Réanimation, INSERM CIC 1415, CRICS-TriGGERSep Network, CHRU de Tours and methodS in Patient-centered outcomes and health ResEarch (SPHERE), INSERM UMR 1246, Université de Tours, France.
³ Unité de soins intensifs, CHU Hôpital Civil Marie Curie, Charleroi, Belgium.
⁴ Médecine Intensive Réanimation, INSERM CIC 1415, CRICS-TriGGERSep F-CRIN Research Network, CHRU de Tours and Centre d'Étude des Pathologies Respiratoires (CEPR), INSERM UMR 1100, Université de Tours, France.

PMID: 37871352
DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2023.103562

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Design: 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.

Setting: The mechanically ventilated patients were recruited from the general intensive care unit of the Marie Curie Civil Hospital (Charleroi University Hospital, Belgium).

Main outcome measures: The communication exchanges were assessed through effectiveness indicators covering the quantity of messages transmitted, success rate, patient satisfaction, communication content and difficulties of use.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: The eye tracking device may further improve communication effectiveness of mechanically ventilated patients compared to the conventional communication board, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Implications for clinical practice: 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.

Keywords: Alternative communication; Communication board; Eye tracking; Intensive care unit; Mechanical ventilation.

Publication types

Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

Communication*
Critical Care*
Cross-Over Studies
Humans
Intensive Care Units
Prospective Studies
Respiration, Artificial* / adverse effects