Dataset Information

An international tool to measure perceived stressors in intensive care units: the PS-ICU scale.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The intensive care unit is increasingly recognized as a stressful environment for healthcare professionals. This context has an impact on the health of these professionals but also on the quality of their personal and professional life. However, there is currently no validated scale to measure specific stressors perceived by healthcare professionals in intensive care. The aim of this study was to construct and validate in three languages a perceived stressors scale more specific to intensive care units (ICU).

Results

We conducted a three-phase study between 2016 and 2019: (1) identification of stressors based on the verbatim of 165 nurses and physicians from 4 countries (Canada, France, Italy, and Spain). We identified 99 stressors, including those common to most healthcare professions (called generic), as well as stressors more specific to ICU professionals (called specific); (2) item elaboration and selection by a panel of interdisciplinary experts to build a provisional 99-item version of the scale. This version was pre-tested with 70 professionals in the 4 countries and enabled us to select 50 relevant items; (3) test of the validity of the scale in 497 ICU healthcare professionals. Factor analyses identified six dimensions: lack of fit with families and organizational functioning; patient- and family-related emotional load; complex/at risk situations and skill-related issues; workload and human resource management issues; difficulties related to team working; and suboptimal care situations. Correlations of the PS-ICU scale with a generic stressors measure (i.e., the Job Content Questionnaire) tested its convergent validity, while its correlations with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-HSS examined its concurrent validity. We also assessed the test-retest reliability of PS-ICU with intraclass correlation coefficients.

Conclusions

The perceived stressors in intensive care units (PS-ICU) scale have good psychometric properties in all countries. It includes six broad dimensions covering generic or specific stressors to ICU, and thus, enables the identification of work situations that are likely to generate high levels of stress at the individual and unit levels. For future studies, this tool will enable the implementation of targeted corrective actions on which intervention research can be based. It also enables national and international comparisons of stressors' impact.

SUBMITTER: Laurent A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8036172 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIntracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is commonly used in neurocritical care patients with acute brain injury (ABI). Practice about indications and use of ICP monitoring in patients with ABI remains, however, highly variable in high-income countries, while data on ICP monitoring in low and middle-income countries are scarce or inconsistent. The aim of the SYNAPSE-ICU study is to describe current practices of ICP monitoring using a worldwide sample and to quantify practice variations in ICP monitoring and management in neurocritical care ABI patients.Methods and analysisThe SYNAPSE-ICU study is a large international, prospective, observational cohort study. From March 2018 to March 2019, all patients fulfilling the following inclusion criteria will be recruited: age >18 years; diagnosis of ABI due to primary haemorrhagic stroke (subarachnoid haemorrhage or intracranial haemorrhage) or traumatic brain injury; Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) with no eye opening (Eyes response=1) and Motor score ≤5 (not following commands) at ICU admission, or neuro-worsening within the first 48 hours with no eye opening and a Motor score decreased to ≤5. Data related to clinical examination (GCS, pupil size and reactivity, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score, neuroimaging) and to ICP interventions (Therapy Intensity Levels) will be recorded on admission, and at day 1, 3 and 7. The Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) will be collected at discharge from ICU and from hospital and at 6-month follow-up. The impact of ICP monitoring and ICP-driven therapy on GOSE will be analysed at both patient and ICU level.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Ethics Committee 'Brianza' at the Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale (ASST)-Monza (approval date: 21 November 2017). Each National Coordinator will notify the relevant ethics committee, in compliance with the local legislation and rules. Data will be made available to the scientific community by means of abstracts submitted to the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine annual conference and by scientific reports and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03257904.

Project description:Although communication among health providers has become a critical part of improving quality of care, few studies on this topic have been conducted in Japan. This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Intensive Care Unit Nurse-Physician Questionnaire (ICU N-P-Q) for use among nurses and physicians in neonatal ICUs (NICUs) in Japan.A Japanese translation of the ICU N-P-Q was administered to physicians and nurses working at 40 NICUs across Japan, which were participating in the Improvement of NICU Practice and Team Approach Cluster randomized controlled trial (INTACT). We used the principal components analysis to evaluate the factor structure of the instruments. Convergent validity was assessed by examining correlations between the subscales of Communication and Conflict Management of the ICU N-P-Q and the subscales and total score of the Nurse-Physician Collaboration Scale (NPCS). Correlations between the subscales of Communication and Conflict Management by correlation with scales that refer to performance, including Job Satisfaction and Unit Effectiveness, were calculated to test the criterion validity.In total, 2006 questionnaires were completed by 316 physicians and 1690 nurses. The exploratory factor analysis revealed 15 factors in the physicians' questionnaire and 12 in the nurses' questionnaire. Convergent validity was confirmed, except for 'Between-group Accuracy' and 'Cooperativeness' in the physicians' scale, and for 'Between-group Accuracy' and 'Sharing of Patient Information' in the nurses' scale. Correlations between the subscales of communication and outcomes were confirmed in the nurses' questionnaire but were not fully supported in the physicians' questionnaire.Although the psychometric property behaved somewhat differently by occupation, the present findings provide preliminary support for the utility of the common item structure with the original scale, to measure the degree and quality of communication and collaboration among staff at NICUs and similar healthcare settings in Japan.UMIN000007064; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundSince the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them.MethodsThis study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsWe analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently.ConclusionsMost sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

Project description:Previous studies have demonstrated that ICU (intensive care unit) survivors have decreased long-term survival rates compared to the general population. However, knowledge about how to identify ICU survivors with higher risk of death and the adjustable factors associated with mortality is still lacking.The FROG-ICU (the French and European Outcome Registry in Intensive Care Units) study is a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study where ICU survivors are followed up to one year after ICU discharge. Beside one year survival, the study is designed to assess incidence and identifying risk factors for mortality over the year following discharge from the ICU. All consecutive patients admitted in ICU to the 28 participating centers during the study period will be included. Every subject will undergo an evaluation at admission, throughout the ICU stay and at ICU discharge. The global, especially cardiovascular, assessment of each subject will be performed through a complete clinical exam, instrumental tests (electrocardiogram, echocardiogram) and biological parameters. Blood and urine samples will be collected at admission and at discharge with the primary goal to assess effectiveness of routine and novel cardiovascular, inflammatory and renal biomarkers, with potential interest in risk stratification for patients who survive an ICU stay. The follow up will include a careful tracking of patients through telephone calls and questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after ICU discharge. FROG-ICU aims to identify the clinical and biological phenotype of patients with different levels of probability of death in the year after ICU discharge.FROG-ICU has been designed to better understand long term outcome after ICU discharge as well as risk factors for all-cause and cardiovascular morbidity and associated mortality. It is a large prospective multicenter cohort with a biological (on plasma and urine) collection and one-year follow-up of ICU patients. FROG ICU will allow performing a risk stratification of ICU survivors as to recognize the subset of patients who may benefit from an early intervention to allow decreased cardiovascular morbidity and related mortality.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01367093 .