No abstract

Introduction Patients in intensive care frequently suffer from not being able to communicate verbally. The aim of this scoping review was to study the safety and effectiveness of the above cuff vocalisation (ACV) on speech and quality of life (QOL) in patients dependent on a cuffed tracheostomy. Methods A scoping review was conducted. The databases Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched in May 2020. We included clinical studies with patients exposed to ACV where speech, QOL or safety issues were assessed. Results Overall, 17 studies were included, of which 15 were observational and 2 were randomised controlled trials. Totally, 231 patients were included. ACV enabled most of the included patients (115/131; 88%) to speak with an audible voice or whisper (moderate quality of evidence). Voice related QOL (V‐RQOL) and QOL in mechanically ventilated patients (QOL‐MV) improved from pre‐ to post‐ ACV compared to a control group not tolerating a one‐way speaking valve (P = .01 and P = .04, respectively) (very low quality of evidence). Several minor complications or problems were reported in 20/75 (27%) cases in addition to two serious adverse events: subcutaneous emphysema in one patient where the tracheostomy was dislodged and a distended trachea in another due to the misconnection of continuous gas to the cuff (low/ very low quality of evidence). Conclusion ACV facilitated communication in patients dependent on a cuffed tracheostomy and attempting to communicate. Quality of evidence in improved V‐RQOL and QOL‐MV was very low. Several minor complications and two serious adverse events were reported.

Funding informationDepartmental funding only.Background: Social media (SoMe) might be an alternative platform for communicating critical care topics to implement evidence-based practice in the intensive care unit (ICU). This survey aims to describe ICU nurses' and physicians' use of SoMe in general, and their perception of using closed Facebook-groups for receiving content on critical care topics. Methods:A cross-sectional, web-based, anonymous survey was distributed to ICU physicians and nurses in four ICUs in autumn 2017 via an email-campaign. Descriptive statistics with rates, percentages and median numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, interquartile ranges are presented. Results:The response-rate was 64% (253/ 394) including 210 nurses and 43 physicians. Overall, 93% had a SoMe-profile, and 77% had a profile on more than one network site. Facebook was the most used social network site, with 87% having a profile. Totally, 68% were daily users, but more nurses used Facebook daily vs physicians (81% vs 60%, respectively, P = 0.006). Nurses were also more positive toward being members of closed Facebook-groups aimed to exchange content on critical care topics (median NRS 9 (6-10) vs 6 (3-9), respectively, P = 0.014). Conclusion:The majority of ICU nurses and physicians were active SoMe users, mainly for personal purposes, and Facebook was the most popular SoMe. Nurses used Facebook daily more frequent and were more positive toward content on critical care topics on Facebook than physicians. These findings might be relevant to customize future communication about critical care topics via SoMe.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.