Dataset Information

Assessment of patients' self-perceived intensive care unit discomforts: Validation of the 18-item version of the IPREA.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIMS:We reported the validation of the 18-item version of the 'Inconforts des Patients de REAnimation (IPREA)' questionnaire that includes 2 new items exploring feeling depressed and shortness of breath during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay. METHODS:The validation process was integrated in a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled, two-parallel group study built to assess the effectiveness of a tailored multicomponent program for reducing self-perceived discomfort in the ICU. All patients aged 18?years or older who survived an ICU stay of 3 calendar days or more were eligible for inclusion. Data collection included demographics (sex, age), type of admission (medical and surgical), health status scores at admission (Knaus score and McCabe index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II), specific ICU therapeutics such as mechanical ventilation (MV), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), use of vasopressors, or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ICU stay duration. RESULTS:A total of 994 patients were included. The initial structure of IPREA was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis showing satisfactory fit (RMSEA at 0.042, CFI at 0.912). No multidimensional structure was identified, allowing the calculation of an overall discomfort score. The three highest discomforts were sleep deprivation, thirst, and perfusion lines and other devices, and the 3 lowest discomforts were limited visiting hours, hunger, and isolation. The overall discomfort score of the 18-item version of IPREA did not differ between men and women. Higher age was significantly correlated with a lower overall discomfort score. While MV was not linked to self-reported discomfort, patients treated by NIV reported higher overall discomfort scores than patients not treated by NIV. CONCLUSION:The 18-item version of IPREA is easy to use and possesses satisfactory psychometric properties. The availability of a reliable and valid French questionnaire asking about patients' self-perceived ICU discomforts enables feedback from the health care team to be incorporated in a continuous quality health care improvement strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrial.gov NCT02442934 (registration date: May 18, 2015, retrospectively registered).

SUBMITTER: Baumstarck K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6367827 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of patients' self-perceived intensive care unit discomforts: Validation of the 18-item version of the IPREA.

Baumstarck Karine K Boucekine Mohamed M Estagnasie Philippe P Geantot Marie-Agnès MA Berric Audrey A Simon Georges G Floccard Bernard B Signouret Thomas T Fromentin Mélanie M Nyunga Martine M Sossou Achille A Venot Marion M Robert René R Follin Arnaud A Audibert Juliette J Renault Anne A Garrouste-Orgeas Maïté M Collange Olivier O Levrat Quentin Q Villard Isabelle I Thevenin Didier D Pottecher Julien J Patrigeon René-Gilles RG Revel Nathalie N Vigne Coralie C Azoulay Elie E Mimoz Olivier O Auquier Pascal P Kalfon Pierre P

Health and quality of life outcomes 20190207 1

<h4>Background and aims</h4>We reported the validation of the 18-item version of the 'Inconforts des Patients de REAnimation (IPREA)' questionnaire that includes 2 new items exploring feeling depressed and shortness of breath during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay.<h4>Methods</h4>The validation process was integrated in a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled, two-parallel group study built to assess the effectiveness of a tailored multicomponent program for reducing self-perceived disco ...[more]

PMID: 30732654

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPreterm birth (PTB) is a complex and significant challenge in obstetrics. Thus, clinicians and researchers have paid a keen interest in the identification of women at a high risk for PTB. This study aimed to develop a PTB risk assessment scale based on the preliminary 32-item Preterm Birth Risk Assessment Scale-Korean version (PBRAS-K).MethodsWe enrolled 298 participants (167 in the exploratory factor analysis group from March 3, 2021 to August 31, 2021 and 131 in the confirmatory factor analysis group from December 3, 2021 to February 14, 2022) who delivered before 37+0 weeks after experiencing preterm symptoms and were admitted to high-risk pregnancy maternal-fetal intensive care units (MFICUs). After an item-reduction process in the exploratory factor analysis, the psychometric property scales were assessed using SPSS Statistics version 27.0, and the confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using AMOS version 27.0.ResultsThe Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett's χ2 test of sphericity confirmed the adequacy of the sample for factor analysis (KMO = .81 (> .80), χ2 = 1841.38, p < .001). The final version of the PBRAS-K comprised 23 items within seven dimensions. Factor analysis identified items explaining 65.9% of the total variance. The PBRAS-K achieved a mean score of 35.58 (± 10.35) and showed high internal consistency and satisfactory reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .85). Regarding concurrent validity, the PBRAS-K exhibited a low-to-moderate correlation with the PTB risk (r = .45, p < .001). As for criterion validity and convergent validity, the PBRAS-K showed a positive and high correlation with the Somatic Awareness Scale with Spontaneous Preterm Labor (SPL-SAS) (r = .65, p < .001) and pregnancy-related stress (r = .57, p < .001), respectively. Risk scoring for preterm delivery and SPL-SAS were moderately correlated (r = .53, p < .001).ConclusionsPBRAS-23-K is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the risk for PTB in pregnant women. Clinical nurses are encouraged to apply and obtain information regarding effective interventions in MFICUs. This scale provides meaningful results and reflects the opinions of women who had experienced PTB. The PBRAS-23-K should be evaluated for standardization and cut-off scores using larger sample sizes in the future.

Project description:The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) was translated into many languages and frequently used in the last decade to assess self-reported interoceptive awareness. However, many studies demonstrated weaknesses regarding unstable factor structure and poor reliability of some scales. The 24-item Brief MAIA-2 questionnaire was developed, with only three items demonstrating the highest factor loadings in each of the eight scales of the MAIA-2. The cross-sectional online study used the 37-item MAIA-2 questionnaire in a non-clinical sample of 323 people aged between 16 and 75 (M = 26.17, SD = 9.12), including 177 women (54.80%). The sample comprised 156 athletes (48.30%) and 167 non-athletes (51.70%). The Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed adequate fit indices for a multidimensional model of the Brief MAIA-2, with the original eight scales: Noticing (awareness of subtle bodily sensations, such as the heartbeat, digestive sensations, or the breath), Not Distracting (ability to maintain attention to bodily sensations without being easily distracted by external stimuli), Not Worrying (tendency to not be overly concerned or anxious about bodily sensations or changes in the body), Attention Regulation (ability to regulate attention to bodily sensations and to shift attention between internal and external stimuli), Emotional Awareness (awareness and understanding of how emotions are associated with bodily sensations), Self Regulation (ability to regulate emotional responses and manage distress through an awareness of bodily sensations), Body Listening (tendency to listen to the body for insight and understanding), and Trusting (trust in bodily sensations as a source of information about one's feelings and needs). The hierarchical bi-factor (S·I - 1) model showed even better-fit indices. Therefore, the general factor of interoception was considered in further statistical tests. Confirmatory composite analysis showed high reliability and discriminant and convergent validity for most Brief MAIA-2 scales, except Noticing. Measurement invariance was confirmed across genders (Women, Men) and sports participation (Athletes, Non-athletes). However, group differences were also found for mean scores in particular scales of the Brief MAIA-2. Men scored significantly lower than women in Not Distracting but higher in Not Worrying, Attention Regulation, Self Regulation, Trusting, and the total score of interoceptive awareness. Gender discrepancies may be influenced by linguistic socialization, which tends to categorize shifts in internal states as either physiological or emotional. Athletes scored significantly lower than Non-athletes on the Not Distracting scale, but they showed higher scores in Noticing, Attention Regulation, Emotion Awareness, Self-Regulation, Body Listening, Trusting, and the global score, suggesting that physical training can improve most areas of interoception. Therefore, physical exercises and mindfulness training may be recommended to improve interoception, especially in women and people suffering from somatic and mental problems. The Brief MAIA-2 is a reliable and valid tool to measure multidimensional interoceptive sensibility in a non-clinical population. To improve well-being and athletic performance, Brief MAIA-2 can be used to assess the body's current perception of interoception and to detect its weak areas requiring improvement. However, the study has some limitations, such as a cross-sectional online self-report survey in a conventional non-clinical sample from Poland. Future cross-cultural studies should include representative samples for non-clinical and clinical populations from different countries and geographic regions to compare the Brief MAIA-2 with more objective psychophysiological methods of measuring interoception to reduce the limitations of these studies.

Project description:Importance:Professional guidelines have identified key communication skills for shared decision-making for critically ill patients, but it is unclear how intensivists interpret and implement them. Objective:To compare the self-evaluations of intensivists reviewing transcripts of their own simulated intensive care unit family meetings with the evaluations of trained expert colleagues. Design, Setting, and Participants:A posttrial web-based survey of intensivists was conducted between January and March 2019. Intensivists reviewed transcripts of simulated intensive care unit family meetings in which they participated in a previous trial from October 2016 to November 2017. In the follow-up survey, participants identified if and how they performed key elements of shared decision-making for an intensive care unit patient at high risk of death. Transcript texts that intensivists self-identified as examples of key communication skills recommended by their professional society's policy on shared decision-making were categorized. Main Outcomes and Measures:Comparison of the evaluations of 2 blinded nonparticipant intensivist colleagues with the self-reported responses of the intensivists. Results:Of 116 eligible intensivists, 76 (66%) completed the follow-up survey (mean [SD] respondent age was 43.1 [8.1] years; 72% were male). Sixty-one of 76 intensivists reported conveying prognosis; however, blinded colleagues who reviewed the deidentified transcripts were less likely to report that prognosis had been conveyed than intensivists reviewing their own transcripts (42 of 61; odds ratio, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.44; P < .001). When reviewing their own transcript, intensivists reported presenting many choices, with the most common choice being code status. They also provided a variety of recommendations, with the most common being to continue the current treatment plan. Thirty-three participants (43%) reported that they offered care focused on comfort, but blinded colleagues rated only 1 (4%) as explaining this option in a clear manner. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, guidelines for shared decision-making and end of life care were interpreted by intensivists in disparate ways. In the absence of training or personalized feedback, self-assessment of communication skills may not be interpreted consistently.

Project description:ObjectivesIn the emergency department (ED), health care providers miss delirium approximately 75% of the time, because they do not routinely screen for this syndrome. The Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is a brief (<1 minute) delirium assessment that may be feasible for use in the ED. The study objective was to determine its validity and reliability in older ED patients.MethodsIn this prospective observational cohort study, patients aged 65 years or older were enrolled at an academic, tertiary care ED from July 2009 to February 2012. An emergency physician (EP) and research assistants (RAs) performed the CAM-ICU. The reference standard for delirium was a comprehensive (~30 minutes) psychiatrist assessment using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria. All assessments were blinded to each other and were conducted within 3 hours. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios were calculated for both the EP and the RAs using the psychiatrist's assessment as the reference standard. Kappa values between the EP and RAs were also calculated to measure reliability.ResultsOf 406 patients enrolled, 50 (12.3%) had delirium. The median age was 73.5 years old (interquartile range [IQR] = 69 to 80 years), 202 (49.8%) were female, and 57 (14.0%) were nonwhite. The CAM-ICU's sensitivities were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 58.3% to 82.5%) and 68.0% (95% CI = 54.2% to 79.2%) in the EP and RAs, respectively. The CAM-ICU's specificity was 98.6% (95% CI = 96.8% to 99.4%) for both raters. The negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0.28 (95% CI = 0.18 to 0.44) and 0.32 (95% CI = 0.22 to 0.49) in the EP and RAs, respectively. The positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 51.3 (95% CI = 21.1 to 124.5) and 48.4 (95% CI = 19.9 to 118.0), respectively. The kappa between the EP and RAs was 0.92 (95% CI = 0.85 to 0.98), indicating excellent interobserver reliability.ConclusionsIn older ED patients, the CAM-ICU is highly specific, and a positive test is nearly diagnostic for delirium when used by both the EP and RAs. However, the CAM-ICU's sensitivity was modest, and a negative test decreased the likelihood of delirium by a small amount. The consequences of a false-negative CAM-ICU are unknown and deserve further study.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) have a high mortality rate, and methods to assess patients' prognosis early and administer precise treatment are of great significance.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to use machine learning to construct a model for the analysis of risk factors and prediction of mortality among ICU patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this study, 123 patients with COVID-19 in the ICU of Vulcan Hill Hospital were retrospectively selected from the database, and the data were randomly divided into a training data set (n=98) and test data set (n=25) with a 4:1 ratio. Significance tests, correlation analysis, and factor analysis were used to screen 100 potential risk factors individually. Conventional logistic regression methods and four machine learning algorithms were used to construct the risk prediction model for the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. The performance of these machine learning models was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Interpretation and evaluation of the risk prediction model were performed using calibration curves, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME), etc, to ensure its stability and reliability. The outcome was based on the ICU deaths recorded from the database.ResultsLayer-by-layer screening of 100 potential risk factors finally revealed 8 important risk factors that were included in the risk prediction model: lymphocyte percentage, prothrombin time, lactate dehydrogenase, total bilirubin, eosinophil percentage, creatinine, neutrophil percentage, and albumin level. Finally, an eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model established with the 8 important risk factors showed the best recognition ability in the training set of 5-fold cross validation (AUC=0.86) and the verification queue (AUC=0.92). The calibration curve showed that the risk predicted by the model was in good agreement with the actual risk. In addition, using the SHAP and LIME algorithms, feature interpretation and sample prediction interpretation algorithms of the XGBoost black box model were implemented. Additionally, the model was translated into a web-based risk calculator that is freely available for public usage.ConclusionsThe 8-factor XGBoost model predicts risk of death in ICU patients with COVID-19 well; it initially demonstrates stability and can be used effectively to predict COVID-19 prognosis in ICU patients.

Dataset Information

Assessment of patients' self-perceived intensive care unit discomforts: Validation of the 18-item version of the IPREA.

Publications

Assessment of patients' self-perceived intensive care unit discomforts: Validation of the 18-item version of the IPREA.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets