BackgroundMechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are unable to communicate verbally. We sought to evaluate their needs via a communication board (CB) and a novel eye tracking device (ETD) that verbalizes selections made by gazing.MethodsThis was a pilot prospective study conducted in a tertiary care surgical ICU. Continuously mechanically ventilated adult surgical ICU patients with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score of −1 to +1, without cognitive impairment, were eligible. We asked patients four yes-or-no questions to assess basic needs regarding presence of pain, need for endotracheal suction, satisfactory room temperature, and position comfort. Patients were then asked if there was anything else that they wanted to communicate. All responses were confirmed by head nodding.ResultsThe median accuracy of the CB (100% (IQR 100%–100%)) for basic needs communication (yes/no questions) was comparable with that of the ETD (100% (IQR 68.8%–100%); p=0.14) in the 12 enrolled patients. Notably, 83% of patients desired to communicate additional information, ranging from spiritual (eg, desire for prayer/chaplain), emotional (eg, frustration, desire for comfort), physical/environmental (eg, television), to physiological (eg, thirst/hunger) needs.DiscussionThe majority of patients desired to communicate something other than basic needs. Unless specifically assessed via an assistive communication device (eg, CB or ETD), some of these other needs would have been difficult to discern.Level of evidenceIV therapeutic care/management.

Background Most patients with advanced ovarian cancer and some patients with advanced endometrial cancer need repeated drainage for malignant ascites. Guidelines to advise those involved in the drainage of ascites are usually produced locally and are generally not evidence-based but mainly based on clinicians’ anecdotal evidence and experience. To discover whether there are ways of managing drains that have been demonstrated to improve the efficacy and quality of the procedure is key in making recommendations which could improve the quality of life (QOL) for women at this critical period of their lives. Objectives To evaluate the benefit and harms of different practices in the management of drains for malignant ascites in the care of women with advanced or recurrent gynaecological cancer. The review aimed to evaluate the evidence regarding the following questions; How long should the drain stay in place? Should the volume of fluid drained be replaced intravenously? Should the drain be clamped to regulate the drainage of fluid? Should any particular vital observations be regularly recorded? Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 1, 2009, Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE1950 to February Week 3 2009, Embase 1980 to 2009 Week 8 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of review articles and contacted experts in the field. Selection criteria We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-randomised studies that compared a range of interventions for management of multiple paracentesis in women with malignant ascites who had a confirmed histological diagnosis of gynaecological cancer. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. No trials were found and therefore no data were analysed. Main results The search strategy identified 1664 unique references of which 1646 were excluded on the basis of title and abstract. The remaining 18 articles were retrieved in full, but none satisfied the inclusion criteria. Authors’ conclusions Since no relevant studies were identified, we are unable to make recommendations regarding the management of drains for malignant ascites in women with gynaecological cancer. Large, multi-centre RCTs are required to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the management of ascitic drains when in situ and their impact on QOL.

Background-Most patients with advanced ovarian cancer and some patients with advanced endometrial cancer need repeated drainage for malignant ascites. Guidelines to advise those involved in the drainage of ascites are usually produced locally and are generally not evidencebased but mainly based on clinicians' anecdotal evidence and experience. To discover whether there are ways of managing drains that have been demonstrated to improve the efficacy and quality of the procedure is key in making recommendations which could improve the quality of life (QOL) for women at this critical period of their lives. Objectives-To evaluate the benefit and harms of different practices in the management of drains for malignant ascites in the care of women with advanced or recurrent gynaecological cancer. The review aimed to evaluate the evidence regarding the following questions; How long should the drain stay in place? Should the volume of fluid drained be replaced intravenously? Should the drain be clamped to regulate the drainage of fluid? Should any particular vital observations be regularly recorded? Search methods-We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 1, 2009, Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE1950 to February Week 3 2009, Embase 1980 to 2009 Week 8 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of review articles and contacted experts in the field. Selection criteria-We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and nonrandomised studies that compared a range of interventions for management of multiple

No abstract

No abstract