Improving the Patient's Experience With a Multimodal Quiet-at-Night Initiative

Wilson, Claire; Whiteman, Kimberly; Stephens, Kimberly; Swanson-Biearman, Brenda; LaBarba, Judy

doi:10.1097/ncq.0000000000000219

Cited by 16 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, QI projects do not provide the outcomes required for a meta-analysis e.g. Wilson et al 2017, Murphy et al 2013, and Thomas et al 2012 only provide descriptive statistics.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The included studies were all published in English and used a variety of study designs to test the noise reduction intervention. Most studies were designated as "quality improvement" initiatives (Haddock, 1994, Hinkulow, 2014, Murphy et al, 2013, Norton et al, 2015, Wilson, 2017; however, these studies included pre-and post-test evaluations formatted in a standard manner and comparable to those found in other included papers. Hence there was no systematic design difference between those studies designated as quality improvement and those designated using other means.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thomas et al, (2012) and Richardson et al, (2009) compared objectively measured noise levels and patient reported outcomes using researcher generated surveys with unknown psychometric properties. Wilson et al, 2017;Hinkulow, 2014 andMurphy et al, 2013 drew data from 'quiet at night' questions posed by the patient satisfaction survey, Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers Systems (HCAHPS), used by all hospitals in the United States. Gathecha et al (2016) was the only study that tested the noise reduction intervention with objective and subjective sleep parameters using validated sleep questionnaires and actigraphy.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scores of the included studies range from 4 to 22. The majority of included studies were quality improvements with audit data (Wilson et al, 2017, Norton et al, 2015, Hinkulow, 2014, Murphy et al, 2013, Thomas et al, 2012, Richardson et al, 2009, and Haddock, 1994 although some had a pre-post design. Two studies (Gathecha et al, 2016 andLareau et al, 2008) described as, respectively, a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) and feasibility study, compared findings from experimental and control groups.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Are noise reduction interventions effective in adult ward settings? A systematic review and meta analysis

Garside

Stephenson

Curtis

et al. 2018

Applied Nursing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International studies show that high levels of environmental noise in hospitals disturb sleep. We know little about effective interventions to address this problem. We aimed to review primary research that tested noise-reduction interventions in ward-settings. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Data Sources: Health-related and acoustic databases searched from inception to 2017 with no language restrictions. Review methods: Experimental, quasi-experimental and observational studies assessing the effect of interventions on patient outcomes and/or environmental noise were included. Results: 834 records were identified with 9 meeting inclusion criteria. Data from 6 studies were pooled. Quality appraisal showed that the level of evidence was generally weak. A random effects meta-analysis determined that a synthesised estimate for the standardised mean difference in total hours sleep (no intervention -intervention) was -0.11 hours (95% CI -0.46 to 0.25 hours; p=0.556), with moderate statistical heterogeneity. A synthesised estimate for the standardised mean difference in awakenings (no intervention -intervention) was 0.05 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.29; p=0.715), with negligible statistical heterogeneity. A random effects meta-analysis determined that a synthesised estimate for the odds ratio for disturbed nights (no intervention: intervention) was 0.75 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.01; p=0.059), with low statistical heterogeneity. Conclusions: Individual studies show that noise reduction interventions are feasible and have the potential to improve patients' sleep experiences. However meta-analyses show insufficient evidence to support their use. Robust studies are required to identify effective interventions to address this significant and ubiquitous problem. AbstractObjective: High levels of environmental noise in hospitals disturbs sleep. We aimed to identify, critically appraise and summarise primary research that reports studies that tested interventions to reduce night-time noise levels in ward-settings. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. with no language restrictions. Review methods: Experimental, quasi-experimental and observational study designs assessing the effect of noise reduction interventions on patient outcomes and/or environmental noise levels were included. Two reviewers independently conducted a quality appraisal using a published framework. Results: In total, 834 records were identified with nine studies meeting inclusion criteria. Quality appraisal showed that the level of evidence was generally weak. A range of noise reduction interventions were identified: one study implemented a single intervention, whilst the remainder were complex, multi-faceted interventions. Findings from individual studies showed mixed results but preliminary evidence suggests that noise reduction interventions can reduce environmental noise leve...

show abstract

“…Further, QI projects do not provide the outcomes required for a meta-analysis e.g. Wilson et al 2017, Murphy et al 2013, and Thomas et al 2012 only provide descriptive statistics.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are noise reduction interventions effective in adult ward settings? A systematic review and meta analysis

Garside

Stephenson

Curtis

et al. 2018

Applied Nursing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interventions to date have included earplugs, noise warning systems, sound absorbing panels, educational initiatives, and noise reduction protocols 15161718. Evidence suggests possible benefits, but the lack of randomisation, blinding, control groups, and long term follow up, and the multi-component nature of many interventions make it difficult to isolate the effectiveness of a single initiative.…”

Section: Slow Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%