Aim and objectives
This study investigated the incidence of thirst and contributing factors in intensive care unit (ICU) patients by analysing differences in physiologic, psychological, and disease‐ and environment‐related parameters in ICU patients with vs without thirst.
Background
Little is known about the factors that influence thirst, and there are no standardised methods for identifying at‐risk patients in the ICU. Previous studies generalised the risk of thirst in ICU patients because of a lack of data on relevant variables. Here, we examined the factors contributing to thirst based on symptom management theory.
Design
Prospective descriptive design.
Methods
Physiologic, psychological, disease‐related and environment‐related data were collected for 301 patients from 4 ICUs (medical, surgical, cardiac and emergency ICUs) of a hospital from 15 December 2017–10 July 2019 through a screening interview, questionnaires and from electronic medical records. The data were analysed with descriptive statistics, the t‐test and chi‐squared test, and by logistic regression. Binary stepwise logistic regression was used to identify thirst‐associated factors. The findings are reported according to the STROBE checklist for cross‐sectional studies.
Results
In total, 210/301 (69.8%) ICU patients experienced thirst. Risk factors were nil per os order (odds ratio [OR] = 4.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.44–11.69), surgery (OR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.11–7.93), high glucose (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.01–11.17) and greater disease severity (OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.02–1.24).
Conclusion
Thirst is common in ICU patients. Timely detection of patients’ thirst and identification of those at high risk by ICU nurses can ensure the implementation of effective and safe interventions.
Relevance to clinical practice
The results of this study highlight the need to evaluate thirst symptoms in patients with severe disease and develop relief strategies for fasting, perioperative, and hyperglycaemic patients and others who are at high risk of thirst.
BackgroundRapid developments in intensive care medicine have made mechanical ventilation an essential method in the resuscitation and comprehensive treatment of critical care patients. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an appraisal form assessing the clinical effectiveness of adult invasive mechanical ventilation systems.MethodsAn appraisal form was designed according to the effectiveness evaluation theory of the American Weapons Systems Effectiveness Industry Advisory Committee (WSEIAC) along with literature review and expert panel review. Content validity of the preliminary form was analyzed in a cohort of 200 patients. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess appraisal form validity. Discriminate validity of different ventilation outcomes was analyzed by t test. Test/retest reliability and inter-scorer reliability were evaluated with 30 patients after a 2-week interval by Cronbach's alpha.ResultsExploratory factor analysis showed eigenvalues for 3 dimensions (availability, dependability, capability) to be 7.85, 4.43, and 4.22, respectively. Cronbach’s α for internal consistency of the appraisal form was 0.957, and 0.922, 0.961 and 0.937, respectively, for the 3 dimensions. Test-retest reliability of 3 dimensions was 0.976, and 0.862, 0.857, 0.885, respectively. Intra-class correlation coefficient verified test-retest reliability; ICC 0.976 and 0.862, 0.857, 0.885 for 3 dimensions, respectively.ConclusionsThe appraisal form for clinical effectiveness of adult invasive mechanical ventilation systems has high reliability and validity and may be used in clinical setting.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.