Asleep or not asleep? Evaluation of the Quality of Patients’ Sleep in Critical Care Nursing

Sleep is important for the recovery of a critically ill patient, as lack of sleep is known to influence negatively a person’s cardiovascular system, mood, orientation, and metabolic and immune function and thus, it may prolong patients’ intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay. Intubated and mechanically ventilated patients suffer from fragmented and light sleep. However, it is not known well how non-intubated patients sleep. The evaluation of the patients’ sleep may be compromised by their fatigue and still position with no indication if they are asleep or not. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ICU patients’ sleep evaluation methods, the quality of non-intubated patients’ sleep, and the sleep evaluations performed by ICU nurses. The aims were to develop recommendations of patients’ sleep evaluation for ICU nurses and to provide a description of the quality of non-intubated patients’ sleep. The literature review of ICU patients’ sleep evaluation methods was extended to the end of 2014. The evaluation of the quality of patients’ sleep was conducted with four data: A) the nurses’ narrative documentations of the quality of patients’ sleep (n=114), B) the nurses’ sleep evaluations (n=21) with a structured observation instrument C) the patients’ self-evaluations (n=114) with the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, and D) polysomnographic evaluations of the quality of patients’ sleep (n=21). The correspondence of data A with data C (collected 4–8/2011), and data B with data D (collected 5–8/2009) were analysed. Content analysis was used for the nurses’ documentations and statistical analyses for all the other data. The quality of non-intubated patients’ sleep varied between individuals. In many patients, sleep was light, awakenings were frequent, and the amount of sleep was insufficient as compared to sleep in healthy people. However, some patients were able to sleep well. The patients evaluated the quality of their sleep on average neither high nor low. Sleep depth was evaluated to be the worst and the speed of falling asleep the best aspect of sleep, on a scale 0 (poor sleep) to 100 (good sleep). Nursing care was mostly performed while the patients were awake, and thus the disturbing effect was low. The instruments available for nurses to evaluate the quality of patients’ sleep were limited and measured mainly the quantity of sleep. Nurses’ structured observatory evaluations of the quality of patients’ sleep were correct for approximately two thirds of the cases, and only regarding total sleep time. Nurses’ narrative documentations of the patients’ sleep corresponded with patients’ self-evaluations in just over half of the cases. However, nurses documented several dimensions of sleep that are not included in the present sleep evaluation instruments. They could be classified according to the components of the nursing process: needs assessment, sleep assessment, intervention, and effect of intervention. Valid, more comprehensive sleep evaluation methods for nurses are needed to evaluate, document, improve and study patients’ quality of sleep.

Nursing student-patient relationship and associated factors

The purpose of this study was to analyse the nursing student-patient relationship and factors associated with this relationship from the point of view of both students and patients, and to identify factors that predict the type of relationship. The ultimate goal is to improve supervised clinical practicum with a view to supporting students in their reciprocal collaborative relationships with patients, increase their preparedness to meet patients’ health needs, and thus to enhance the quality of patient care. The study was divided into two phases. In the first phase (1999-2005), a literature review concerning the student-patient relationship was conducted (n=104 articles) and semi-structured interviews carried out with nursing students (n=30) and internal medicine patients (n=30). Data analysis was by means of qualitative content analysis and Student-Patient Relationship Scales, which were specially developed for this research. In the second phase (2005-2007), the data were collected by SPR scales among nursing students (n=290) and internal medicine patients (n=242). The data were analysed statistically by SPSS 12.0 software. The results revealed three types of student-patient relationship: a mechanistic relationship focusing on the student’s learning needs; an authoritative relationship focusing on what the student assumes is in the patient’s best interest; and a facilitative relationship focusing on the common good of both student and patient. Students viewed their relationship with patients more often as facilitative and authoritative than mechanistic, while in patients’ assessments the authoritative relationship occurred most frequently and the facilitative relationship least frequently. Furthermore, students’ and patients’ views on their relationships differed significantly. A number of background factors, contextual factors and consequences of the relationship were found to be associated with the type of relationship. In the student data, factors that predicted the type of relationship were age, current year of study and support received in the relationship with patient. The higher the student’s age, the more likely the relationship with the patient was facilitative. Fourth year studies and the support of a person other than a supervisor were significantly associated with an authoritative relationship. Among patients, several factors were found to predict the type of nursing student-patient relationships. Significant factors associated with a facilitative relationship were university-level education, several previous hospitalizations, admission to hospital for a medical problem, experience of caring for an ill family member and patient’s positive perception of atmosphere during collaboration and of student’s personal and professional growth. In patients, positive perceptions of student’s personal and professional attributes and patient’s improved health and a greater commitment to self-care, on the other hand, were significantly associated with an authoritative relationship, whereas positive perceptions of one’s own attributes as a patient were significantly associated with a mechanistic relationship. It is recommended that further research on the student-patient relationship and related factors should focus on questions of content, methodology and education.