Acceptability of implementing a communication board for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units: A cross-sectional substudy of the intervention arm of a pilot randomised controlled trial

Background

Communication boards are a low-technology tool used to facilitate interactions with mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Research on the acceptability of communication boards in resource-limited intensive care settings is lacking.

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess patients' and nurses’ experienced acceptability of implementing a communication board in Sri Lankan ICUs.

Design

This was a cross-sectional substudy of the intervention group patients and nurses who participated in a pilot randomised controlled trial that assessed the feasibility of implementing a communication board in two ICUs in one Sri Lankan hospital.

Methods

In the parent trial conscious, ventilated adult ICU patients were recruited. This substudy included all patients in the intervention group in the parent trial and ICU nurses who used the communication board. Sekhon's generic acceptability questionnaire, adapted and translated into Sinhala, was administered to both patients and nurses. The questionnaire comprised eight items; seven items represented the seven constructs of the framework (possible scores ranging from 7 to 35), and a single item measured general acceptability. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data. Additionally, nurses were asked three open-ended questions regarding their views on using the communication board, and data were analysed using content analysis.

Results

Of the 123 patients screened in the parent trial, 60 met the inclusion criteria and were randomised, with 30 randomly allocated to the intervention group. In total, 30 patients and 50 nurses completed the survey (response rate: 100%). Both patients and nurses rated all items positively except “burden”. Patient and nurse total mean scores for the seven items, excluding the single-item general acceptability, were 27.5 (standard deviation: 2.6) and 27.2 (standard deviation: 2.2), respectively. Patients and nurses both scored high on the single-item general acceptability, with a median (interquartile range) of 4.0 (4.0–5.0) and 4.0 (4.0–4.0), respectively. Two patient items and five nurse items significantly correlated with the single-item general acceptability. Two categories, (i) drivers for using the communication board and (ii) obstacles to communication board use, were found through content analysis.

Conclusion

This substudy demonstrated that the communication board was acceptable to both patients and nurses despite its perceived “burden”.