Pub Date : 2025-11-08DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104271
Jordi Rello , Niccolò Buetti , Hagar L. Mowafy
Background
The demographic shift towards an ageing population, especially in Europe, place a significant burden on healthcare systems and increasing demand for long-term care facility (LTCF) services. These facilities provide support to both older individuals and patients with disabilities. Despite their importance, LTCFs continue to face challenges in infection prevention and control (IPC) contributing to increase the burden of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
Objective
The aim of this opinion review is to summarize current global and regional IPC guidance applicable to LTCFs and identifies critical gaps that must be addressed to improve residents’ safety.
Discussion
Global and regional organizations including the World Health Organization (WHO), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other professional organizations provides basic IPC recommendations mostly adapted from acute healthcare settings. Despite these valuable resources, major gaps persist, especially within the European context. One of the major gaps is that most of these IPC guidance are adapted from acute care settings without taking into consideration the unique structural and social differences of LTCFs. The inherent heterogeneity of LTCFs within European countries, the scarcity of high-quality studies assessing different IPC interventions across diverse LTCF types, compounded by the limitations in workforce capacity and surveillance gaps further pose critical challenges to effective IPC guidance.
Implications for Clinical Practice
Unified, evidence-based guidelines specifically designed for LTCFs are urgently needed to warrant the safety and equity of service provided to LTCF residents across different countries and sectors. Such a framework must emphasize continuous surveillance, workforce development, and practical, applicable strategies that can be easily incorporated into the unique nature of LTCFs.
{"title":"Infections in long-term care: Challenges in an ageing Europe","authors":"Jordi Rello , Niccolò Buetti , Hagar L. Mowafy","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104271","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104271","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The demographic shift towards an ageing population, especially in Europe, place a significant burden on healthcare systems and increasing demand for long-term care facility (LTCF) services. These facilities provide support to both older individuals and patients with disabilities. Despite their importance, LTCFs continue to face challenges in infection prevention and control (IPC) contributing to increase the burden of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR).</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The aim of this opinion review is to summarize current global and regional IPC guidance applicable to LTCFs and identifies critical gaps that must be addressed to improve residents’ safety.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Global and regional organizations including the World Health Organization (WHO), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other professional organizations provides basic IPC recommendations mostly adapted from acute healthcare settings. Despite these valuable resources, major gaps persist, especially within the European context. One of the major gaps is that most of these IPC guidance are adapted from acute care settings without taking into consideration the unique structural and social differences of LTCFs. The inherent heterogeneity of LTCFs within European countries, the scarcity of high-quality studies assessing different IPC interventions across diverse LTCF types, compounded by the limitations in workforce capacity and surveillance gaps further pose critical challenges to effective IPC guidance.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for Clinical Practice</h3><div>Unified, evidence-based guidelines specifically designed for LTCFs are urgently needed to warrant the safety and equity of service provided to LTCF residents across different countries and sectors. Such a framework must emphasize continuous surveillance, workforce development, and practical, applicable strategies that can be easily incorporated into the unique nature of LTCFs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 104271"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145468048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-27DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104130
Yunxia Chen, Zhiyuan Sheng
{"title":"Simulation and validation: re-evaluating gastric tube-tip manometry for nasogastric tube verification – Response to Tao Zhang","authors":"Yunxia Chen, Zhiyuan Sheng","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104130","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104130","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 104130"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145396015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-27DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104270
Melissa J Bloomer , Krishnaswamy Sundararajan
{"title":"Language, culture and communication vulnerability – Letter on Istanboulian et al.","authors":"Melissa J Bloomer , Krishnaswamy Sundararajan","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104270","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104270","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 104270"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145371060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-27DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104259
Karin Plummer , Ann Bonner , Melissa J Bloomer
{"title":"Observational research in critical care: Harnessing the lens of truth","authors":"Karin Plummer , Ann Bonner , Melissa J Bloomer","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104259","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104259","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 104259"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145396009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-27DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104269
Rongyi Xu, Deyi Pan, Lisong Chen
{"title":"Endotracheal tube cuff modifications for VAP prevention: Bridging evidence and clinical practice – Letter on Li S et al.","authors":"Rongyi Xu, Deyi Pan, Lisong Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104269","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104269","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 104269"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145371059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Omega-3 fatty acids in critical care nutrition: Balancing promise and pragmatism","authors":"Antonios Katsounas , Georgios Papathanakos , Despoina Koulenti","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104264","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104264","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 104264"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145396023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Adrenergic responses, particularly tachycardia, play a role in sepsis-related complications. Ultrashort-acting β-blockers have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for their impact on sepsis outcomes, but conflicting results have been reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide an updated perspective on the impact of ultrashort-acting β-blockers on the clinical outcomes of sepsis.
Methods
A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted from inception to January 12, 2024. RCTs investigating the clinical effects and safety of ultrashort-acting β-blockers in sepsis or septic shock were included. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to evaluate the reliability of cumulative evidence. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality rate.
Results
A total of 2253 patients involved in 27 RCTs were included. Ultrashort-acting β-blockers significantly reduced the 28-day mortality rate (31.6% versus 48.4%; risk ratio [RR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.56–0.78). TSA provided robust evidence for the 28-day and in-hospital mortality benefit. The survival benefit remains evident in subgroups of patients with septic tachycardia (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47–0.93), septic cardiomyopathy (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44–0.83), Chinese populations (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54–0.76), and those treated with esmolol (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56–0.73). For patients with septic shock, only those with tachycardia demonstrated a statistically significant difference in mortality rates (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55–0.88).
Conclusions
Adjuvant ultrashort-acting β-blocker therapy demonstrated potential benefits in improving survival for patients with sepsis or septic shock.
Implications for clinical practice
This study highlights the potential benefits of adjuvant ultrashort-acting β-blocker therapy for the treatment of sepsis or septic shock in terms of enhanced survival and other clinical advantages, including reduced heart rate and cardiovascular biomarkers. Furthermore, such therapy did not appear to impair cardiac function and hemodynamic stability.
{"title":"Effect of ultrashort-acting β-blocker on the mortality of patients with sepsis or septic shock: A systematic review and trial sequential meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Po-Yu Huang , Ting-Hui Liu , Jheng-Yan Wu , Ya-Wen Tsai , Wan-Hsuan Hsu , Min-Hsiang Chuang , Hung-Jen Tang , Chih-Cheng Lai","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104265","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104265","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Adrenergic responses, particularly tachycardia, play a role in sepsis-related complications. Ultrashort-acting β-blockers have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for their impact on sepsis outcomes, but conflicting results have been reported. This systematic review and <em>meta</em>-analysis aim to provide an updated perspective on the impact of ultrashort-acting β-blockers on the clinical outcomes of sepsis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and <span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> was conducted from inception to January 12, 2024. RCTs investigating the clinical effects and safety of ultrashort-acting β-blockers in sepsis or septic shock were included. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to evaluate the reliability of cumulative evidence. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality rate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 2253 patients involved in 27 RCTs were included. Ultrashort-acting β-blockers significantly reduced the 28-day mortality rate (31.6% versus 48.4%; risk ratio [RR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.56–0.78). TSA provided robust evidence for the 28-day and in-hospital mortality benefit. The survival benefit remains evident in subgroups of patients with septic tachycardia (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47–0.93), septic cardiomyopathy (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44–0.83), Chinese populations (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54–0.76), and those treated with esmolol (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56–0.73). For patients with septic shock, only those with tachycardia demonstrated a statistically significant difference in mortality rates (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55–0.88).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Adjuvant ultrashort-acting β-blocker therapy demonstrated potential benefits in improving survival for patients with sepsis or septic shock.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for clinical practice</h3><div>This study highlights the potential benefits of adjuvant ultrashort-acting β-blocker therapy for the treatment of sepsis or septic shock in terms of enhanced survival and other clinical advantages, including reduced heart rate and cardiovascular biomarkers. Furthermore, such therapy did not appear to impair cardiac function and hemodynamic stability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 104265"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145380576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-26DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104261
Tommaso Rosà, Gaia Tempo, Massimo Antonelli
{"title":"The restraint-free ICU: not quite there yet","authors":"Tommaso Rosà, Gaia Tempo, Massimo Antonelli","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104261","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104261","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 104261"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145380622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of the eye protection chamber compared to adhesive tape in preventing corneal injury in critically ill adult patients.
Method
A two-arm, double-blind pilot randomized controlled trial following CONSORT guidelines. 80 critically ill patients were randomized into an intervention group (n = 40; eye drops plus eye protection chamber) and a control group (n = 40; eye drops plus micropore adhesive tape). Corneal health was assessed by a trained critical care nurse on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 using fluorescein staining and portable slit-lamp examination. The primary outcome was the incidence of corneal injury. Secondary outcomes included the severity and associated risk factors.
Results
During the study period, 203 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 123 (60.6 %) presented with corneal injury upon admission and were excluded, while 80 patients (39.4 %) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the trial. In a randomized trial, corneal injury occurred in 11.2 % of participants, 7.5 % in the control group, and 3.75 % in the intervention group, indicating a 50 % reduction in risk with the chamber. Most injuries were classified as Grade 1. Grade 2 and bilateral injuries occurred only in the control group.
Conclusion
The eye protection chamber was effective and viable in reducing the incidence and severity of corneal injuries compared to adhesive tape.
Implications for clinical practice
The chamber demonstrated efficacy and feasibility in preventing corneal injuries in critically ill patients with impaired or absent blink reflexes, and it can be tested in other centers. Implementing preventive strategies, such as eyelid closure, lubrication, and mechanical protection, is essential to enhance patient safety and reduce avoidable ocular complications in intensive care settings.
{"title":"Eye protection chamber versus adhesive tape to prevent corneal injury in critically ill patients: A randomized pilot-controlled trial","authors":"Patricia Rezende do Prado , Natasha Varjão Volpáti , Waleska Olivares Nascimento , Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes , Natália Pimentel Moreno Mantilla , Edna Lopes Monteiro , Thatiana Lameira Maciel Amaral , Jonas Bodini Alonso , Gustavo Trindade Valio","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104263","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104263","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of the eye protection chamber compared to adhesive tape in preventing corneal injury in critically ill adult patients.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>A two-arm, double-blind pilot randomized controlled trial following CONSORT guidelines. 80 critically ill patients were randomized into an intervention group (n = 40; eye drops plus eye protection chamber) and a control group (n = 40; eye drops plus micropore adhesive tape). Corneal health was assessed by a trained critical care nurse on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 using fluorescein staining and portable slit-lamp examination. The primary outcome was the incidence of corneal injury. Secondary outcomes included the severity and associated risk factors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>During the study period, 203 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 123 (60.6 %) presented with corneal injury upon admission and were excluded, while 80 patients (39.4 %) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the trial. In a randomized trial, corneal injury occurred in 11.2 % of participants, 7.5 % in the control group, and 3.75 % in the intervention group, indicating a 50 % reduction in risk with the chamber. Most injuries were classified as Grade 1. Grade 2 and bilateral injuries occurred only in the control group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The eye protection chamber was effective and viable in reducing the incidence and severity of corneal injuries compared to adhesive tape.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for clinical practice</h3><div>The chamber demonstrated efficacy and feasibility in preventing corneal injuries in critically ill patients with impaired or absent blink reflexes, and it can be tested in other centers. Implementing preventive strategies, such as eyelid closure, lubrication, and mechanical protection, is essential to enhance patient safety and reduce avoidable ocular complications in intensive care settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 104263"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145380610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-15DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104253
Bram Tilburgs , Carolien Bakker-Crommentuijn , Mirjam de Graaf , Mark van den Boogaard
Background
Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions can be stressful for patients and family members. Patients may face discomfort, pain, delirium, immobility, and uncertainty about recovery, while family members often experience emotional strain, uncertainty and fatigue. Patient- and family-centered care (PFCC) is a guideline recommended approach to reduce ICU-burden for both patient and family members. However, which interventions are important and feasible for PFCC in the ICU is unknown.
Objectives
To explore which PFCC interventions are most important and feasible in the ICU according to Dutch clinicians, patients and family members.
Methods
A 4-stage modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) Delphi study was conducted. First, a literature review and focus group interviews were used to identify important and feasible PFCC interventions. Second, ICU-stakeholders (nurses, physicians, patients and family members), rated interventions on importance and feasibility and added comments. Third, stakeholders discussed interventions rated as uncertain on importance and feasibility and created a second set of interventions. Fourth, stakeholders rated interventions from stage 3 on importance and feasibility and ranked interventions resulting in a top 5 of most important interventions.
Results
In total, 30 former patients and family members and 46 healthcare professionals participated. 35 interventions for PFCC in the ICU were identified. Of these, 31 were rated as both important and feasible, and four were rated as uncertain. The five highest-rated interventions focused on regular multidisciplinary conversations with patients and families about care and treatment plans, keeping a patient diary, offering psychological support from consultants, creating a tailored daily schedule, and ensuring consistent communication with the patient’s contact person.
Conclusion and implications for clinical Practice
Implementing interventions rated highly on both importance and feasibility may significantly enhance ICU care experiences for patients and families. The top five rated interventions indicate what was considered most important in minimizing the impact of an ICU admission.
{"title":"Important and feasible patient- and family-centered intensive care interventions: A Delphi study with stakeholders","authors":"Bram Tilburgs , Carolien Bakker-Crommentuijn , Mirjam de Graaf , Mark van den Boogaard","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104253","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.104253","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions can be stressful for patients and family members. Patients may face discomfort, pain, delirium, immobility, and uncertainty about recovery, while family members often experience emotional strain, uncertainty and fatigue. Patient- and family-centered care (PFCC) is a guideline recommended approach to reduce ICU-burden for both patient and family members. However, which interventions are important and feasible for PFCC in the ICU is unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To explore which PFCC interventions are most important and feasible in the ICU according to Dutch clinicians, patients and family members.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A 4-stage modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) Delphi study was conducted. First, a literature review and focus group interviews were used to identify important and feasible PFCC interventions. Second, ICU-stakeholders (nurses, physicians, patients and family members), rated interventions on importance and feasibility and added comments. Third, stakeholders discussed interventions rated as uncertain on importance and feasibility and created a second set of interventions. Fourth, stakeholders rated interventions from stage 3 on importance and feasibility and ranked interventions resulting in a top 5 of most important interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 30 former patients and family members and 46 healthcare professionals participated. 35 interventions for PFCC in the ICU were identified. Of these, 31 were rated as both important and feasible, and four were rated as uncertain. The five highest-rated interventions focused on regular multidisciplinary conversations with patients and families about care and treatment plans, keeping a patient diary, offering psychological support from consultants, creating a tailored daily schedule, and ensuring consistent communication with the patient’s contact person.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion and implications for clinical Practice</h3><div>Implementing interventions rated highly on both importance and feasibility may significantly enhance ICU care experiences for patients and families. The top five rated interventions indicate what was considered most important in minimizing the impact of an ICU admission.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 104253"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145310371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号