Continuous care and patients’ basic needs during weaning from mechanical ventilation: A qualitative study

Understanding patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in the Intensive Care Unit: Findings from a meta‐synthesis and meta‐summary

“…Studies were mostly based on phenomenological–hermeneutical approaches, two of which were mixed‐method studies (Fink et al, 2015; Haugdahl, Dahlberg, Klepstad, & Storli, 2017). Studies included were mainly authored in Norway ( n = 3; Berntzen, Bjork, & Woien, 2018; Haugdahl et al, 2017; Wallander Karlsen et al, 2019), followed by Denmark ( n = 2; Holm & Dreyer, 2017; Kjeldsen et al, 2018), while the remaining four were developed in other countries (Australia, Tembo et al, 2015; Iran, Khalafi, Elahi, & Ahmadi, 2016; Sweden, Tingsvik et al, 2018) and the United States (Fink et al, 2015). With the exception of two studies (Berntzen et al, 2018; Tembo et al, 2015), they were all multicentre in nature.…”

“…With regards to the setting, studies were all conducted in multidisciplinary ICUs, with the exception of two involving only medical and surgical ICUs (Berntzen et al, 2018; Holm & Dreyer, 2017). Moreover the time elapsed between the mechanical ventilation experience and the interview was different across studies: in some, data was collected during the patients’ ICU‐stay (Fink et al, 2015; Holm & Dreyer, 2017; Khalafi et al, 2016; Kjeldsen et al, 2018; Wallander Karlsen et al, 2019) while in others, patients were interviewed immediately after their ICU discharge (within 1–2 weeks; Berntzen et al, 2018; Tembo et al, 2015) or after hospital discharge in their homes from two (Tingsvik et al, 2018) up to 14 months (Haugdahl et al, 2017). Only three studies (Berntzen et al, 2018; Fink et al, 2015; Holm & Dreyer, 2017) clearly described the use of an analgosedation protocol, with only analgesics administration to ease discomfort and/or daily wake‐up trials; on the contrary, one study declared that weaning protocols were not a common practice in the context explored (Tingsvik et al, 2018).…”

“…This synthesised finding originated from three codes grouped into two categories: “Feeling protected” and “Being certain of not being alone.” Nurses and physicians were experienced as an important support for patients receiving mechanical ventilation making them feel supervised and comforted: “ Their presence gave me reassurance ” (Khalafi et al, 2016). Furthermore, patients cared for in shared wards have reported perceiving the presence of other patients: “ I’m not the only one to have these problems ” (Berntzen et al, 2018), thus in company, and not alone.…”

Professioneller Informationsaustausch

“…Aus den Forschungsergebnissen wird deutlich, dass Face-to-Face-Kommunikation als Mittel der Wahl in der gängigen Praxis gehandhabt wird. Analog zur Integration der verabschiedenden Gesundheits-und Krankenpflegenden in die weitere Pflegeplanung wird hier die Möglichkeit geboten, individuelle Pflegeprobleme, -phänomene und Problemlösungsstrategien zu diskutieren und abzuwägen [28] [37].…”

“…Bei der Verlegung eines Patienten von der RCU sollte der Verlegungsbericht möglichst lückenlos sein. (Quelle: Paavo Blåfield; Symbolbild) um allen Patienten im Folgedienst eine angemessene und individuelle Pflege zu bieten[27][28].…”