降低重症监护室声级干预措施的有效性:一项系统综述。

Jeanette Vreman, Joris Lemson, Cris Lanting, Johannes van der Hoeven, Mark van den Boogaard
{"title":"降低重症监护室声级干预措施的有效性:一项系统综述。","authors":"Jeanette Vreman,&nbsp;Joris Lemson,&nbsp;Cris Lanting,&nbsp;Johannes van der Hoeven,&nbsp;Mark van den Boogaard","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Excessive noise is ubiquitous in the ICU, and there is growing evidence of the negative impact on work performance of caregivers. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce noise in the ICU.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Databases of PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to September 14, 2022.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against study eligibility criteria. Noise mitigating ICU studies were included when having at least one quantitative acoustic outcome measure expressed in A-weighted sound pressure level with an experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational design. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, and a third independent reviewer adjudicated as necessary.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>After title, abstract, and full-text selection, two reviewers independently assessed the quality of each study using the Cochrane's Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, and interventions were summarized.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>After screening 12,652 articles, 25 articles were included, comprising either a mixed group of healthcare professionals (<i>n</i> = 17) or only nurses (<i>n</i> = 8) from adult or PICU settings. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low. Noise reduction interventions were categorized into education (<i>n</i> = 4), warning devices (<i>n</i> = 3), multicomponent programs (<i>n</i> = 15), and architectural redesign (<i>n</i> = 3). Education, a noise warning device, and an architectural redesign significantly decreased the sound pressure levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Staff education and visual alert systems seem promising interventions to reduce noise with a short-term effect. The evidence of the studied multicomponent intervention studies, which may lead to the best results, is still low. Therefore, high-quality studies with a low risk of bias and a long-term follow-up are warranted. Embedding noise shielding within the ICU-redesign is supportive to reduce sound pressure levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 4","pages":"e0885"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6a/e1/cc9-5-e0885.PMC10047617.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effectiveness of the Interventions to Reduce Sound Levels in the ICU: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Jeanette Vreman,&nbsp;Joris Lemson,&nbsp;Cris Lanting,&nbsp;Johannes van der Hoeven,&nbsp;Mark van den Boogaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Excessive noise is ubiquitous in the ICU, and there is growing evidence of the negative impact on work performance of caregivers. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce noise in the ICU.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Databases of PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to September 14, 2022.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against study eligibility criteria. Noise mitigating ICU studies were included when having at least one quantitative acoustic outcome measure expressed in A-weighted sound pressure level with an experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational design. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, and a third independent reviewer adjudicated as necessary.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>After title, abstract, and full-text selection, two reviewers independently assessed the quality of each study using the Cochrane's Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, and interventions were summarized.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>After screening 12,652 articles, 25 articles were included, comprising either a mixed group of healthcare professionals (<i>n</i> = 17) or only nurses (<i>n</i> = 8) from adult or PICU settings. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low. Noise reduction interventions were categorized into education (<i>n</i> = 4), warning devices (<i>n</i> = 3), multicomponent programs (<i>n</i> = 15), and architectural redesign (<i>n</i> = 3). Education, a noise warning device, and an architectural redesign significantly decreased the sound pressure levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Staff education and visual alert systems seem promising interventions to reduce noise with a short-term effect. The evidence of the studied multicomponent intervention studies, which may lead to the best results, is still low. Therefore, high-quality studies with a low risk of bias and a long-term follow-up are warranted. Embedding noise shielding within the ICU-redesign is supportive to reduce sound pressure levels.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"e0885\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6a/e1/cc9-5-e0885.PMC10047617.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000885\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

过度的噪音在ICU中无处不在,越来越多的证据表明对护理人员的工作绩效有负面影响。本研究旨在确定降低ICU噪声的干预措施的有效性。数据来源:系统检索PubMed、EMBASE、PsychINFO、CINAHL、Web of Science等数据库,检索时间为建站至2022年9月14日。研究选择:两名独立审稿人根据研究资格标准评估标题和摘要。当至少有一项定量声学结果测量以a加权声压级表示,采用实验、准实验或观察设计时,可纳入减轻噪声的ICU研究。差异以协商一致的方式解决,必要时由第三位独立审稿人裁决。资料提取:在标题、摘要和全文选择之后,两位审稿人使用Cochrane的非随机干预研究的偏倚风险工具独立评估每项研究的质量。根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目综合数据,并总结干预措施。数据综合:在筛选12,652篇文章后,纳入了25篇文章,包括来自成人或PICU环境的医疗保健专业人员(n = 17)或仅护士(n = 8)的混合组。总体而言,这些研究的方法学质量较低。降噪干预措施分为教育(n = 4)、警告装置(n = 3)、多组件计划(n = 15)和建筑重新设计(n = 3)。教育、噪音警告装置和建筑重新设计显著降低了声压级。结论:员工教育和视觉警报系统似乎是有希望的干预措施,以减少噪音和短期效果。所研究的多组分干预研究可能导致最佳结果的证据仍然很低。因此,有必要进行低偏倚风险的高质量研究和长期随访。在重新设计的icu中嵌入噪声屏蔽有助于降低声压级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Effectiveness of the Interventions to Reduce Sound Levels in the ICU: A Systematic Review.

Excessive noise is ubiquitous in the ICU, and there is growing evidence of the negative impact on work performance of caregivers. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce noise in the ICU.

Data sources: Databases of PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to September 14, 2022.

Study selection: Two independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against study eligibility criteria. Noise mitigating ICU studies were included when having at least one quantitative acoustic outcome measure expressed in A-weighted sound pressure level with an experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational design. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, and a third independent reviewer adjudicated as necessary.

Data extraction: After title, abstract, and full-text selection, two reviewers independently assessed the quality of each study using the Cochrane's Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, and interventions were summarized.

Data synthesis: After screening 12,652 articles, 25 articles were included, comprising either a mixed group of healthcare professionals (n = 17) or only nurses (n = 8) from adult or PICU settings. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low. Noise reduction interventions were categorized into education (n = 4), warning devices (n = 3), multicomponent programs (n = 15), and architectural redesign (n = 3). Education, a noise warning device, and an architectural redesign significantly decreased the sound pressure levels.

Conclusions: Staff education and visual alert systems seem promising interventions to reduce noise with a short-term effect. The evidence of the studied multicomponent intervention studies, which may lead to the best results, is still low. Therefore, high-quality studies with a low risk of bias and a long-term follow-up are warranted. Embedding noise shielding within the ICU-redesign is supportive to reduce sound pressure levels.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A New Dosing Frontier: Retrospective Assessment of Effluent Flow Rates and Residual Renal Function Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Hemodynamic Determinants of Cardiac Surgery-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Racial Differences in Accuracy of Predictive Models for High-Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in COVID-19 Knowledge and Practice Gaps in Pediatric Neurocritical Care Nursing: Lessons Learned From a Specialized Educational Boot Camp Unifying Fluid Responsiveness and Tolerance With Physiology: A Dynamic Interpretation of the Diamond–Forrester Classification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1