A Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Enable Communication in Patients With an Artificial Airway: An International Delphi Consensus Study (Comm-COS).

OBJECTIVES: Critically ill adults requiring artificial airways experience profound communication deficits. Studies of interventions supporting communication report disparate outcomes, creating subsequent challenges in the interpretation of their effectiveness. Therefore, we aimed to develop international consensus for a communication core outcome set (Comm-COS) for future trials of communication interventions in this population. DESIGN: 1) Systematic review, 2) patient/family interviews, 3) two-round modified Delphi, and 4) virtual consensus meetings with a final voting round. A multidisciplinary expert steering committee oversaw all stages. SETTING: Interviews and consensus meetings were conducted via videoconferencing. Digital methods were used for Delphi and final Comm-COS voting. SUBJECTS: Three stakeholder groups: 1) patient and family members with lived experience within 3 years, 2) clinicians with experience working in critical care, and 3) researchers publishing in the field. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 59 outcomes via our systematic review, 3 unique outcomes from qualitative interviews, and 2 outcomes from our steering committee. Following item reduction, 32 outcomes were presented in Delphi round 1; 134 participants voted; 15 patient/family (11%), 91 clinicians (68%), and 28 researchers (21%). Nine additional outcomes were generated and added to round 2; 106 (81%) participants voted. Following completion of the consensus processes, the Comm-COS includes seven outcomes: 1) changes in emotions and wellbeing associated with ability to communicate, 2) physical impact of communication aid use, 3) time to functional communication, 4) ability to communicate healthcare needs (comfort/care/safety/decisions), 5) conversation agency, 6) ability to establish a communication connection to develop and maintain relationships, and 7) acceptability of the communication intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first COS to specifically focus on communication for critically ill adults. Limitations for operationalization include selection of measures to use with these outcomes. Identification of suitable measures and adoption of the Comm-COS in future trials will help establish effective interventions to ameliorate the highly prevalent and negative experience of communicative incapacity.

Effectiveness, experience, and usability of low-technology augmentative and alternative communication in intensive care: A mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are commonly on mechanical ventilation, either through endotracheal intubation or tracheostomy, which usually leaves them nonverbal. Low-technology augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies are simple and effective ways to enhance communication between patients and their communication partners but are underutilised. AIM: The aim of this study was to systematically review current evidence regarding the effectiveness, experience of use, and usability of low-technology AAC with nonverbal patients and their communication partners in the ICU. METHODS: This review included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies of adult ICU patients aged 18 or older who were nonverbal due to mechanical ventilation and their communication partners. Studies using low-technology AAC, such as communication boards and pen and paper, were included. Six databases were searched, and the review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A convergent segregated approach was used for data synthesis. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included. Low-technology AAC improved patient satisfaction, facilitated communication, and met patients' physical and psychological needs. Communication boards with mixed content (e.g., pictures, words, and letters) were preferred but were used less frequently than unaided strategies due to patients' medical status, tool availability, and staff attitudes. Boards should be user-friendly, tailored, include pen/paper, and introduced preoperation to increase patient's comfort when using them postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Existing evidence support low-technology AAC's efficacy in meeting patients' needs. Better usability hinges on proper implementation and addressing challenges. Further research is crucial for refining communication-board design, ensuring both user-friendliness and sophistication to cater to ICU patients' diverse needs. REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, with registration number CRD42022331566.

Assessing the oral and suprahyoid muscles in healthy adults using muscle ultrasound to inform the swallowing process: a proof-of-concept study.

The oral and suprahyoid muscles are responsible for movements of swallowing. Our study aimed to determine the reproducibility of static and dynamic measurements of these muscles using bedside ultrasound equipment. Forty healthy participants were recruited prospectively. Primary outcomes were evaluation of mass measurements of the anterior bellies of the digastric, mylohyoid, geniohyoid and tongue in B-mode ultrasound. Secondary outcomes were evaluation of geniohyoid muscle layer thickness and function using M-mode. Muscle mass measurements demonstrated little within-participant variability. Coefficient of Variance (CoV) across muscles were: anterior belly digastric (5.0%), mylohyoid (8.7%), geniohyoid (5.0%) and tongue (3.2%). A relationship between sex (r2 = 0.131 p = 0.022) was demonstrated for the geniohyoid muscle, with males having higher transverse Cross Sectional Area (CSA) (14.3 ± 3.6 mm vs. 11.9 ± 2.5 mm, p = 0.002). Tongue size was correlated with weight (r2 = 0.356, p = 0.001), height (r2 = 0.156, p = 0.012) and sex (r2 = 0.196, p = 0.004). Resting thickness of the geniohyoid muscle layer changed with increasing bolus sizes (f = 3.898, p = 0.026). Velocity increased with bolus size (p = < 0.001, F = 8.974). However swallow time and slope distance did not, potentially influenced by higher coefficients of variation. Oral and suprahyoid muscle mass are easily assessed using bedside ultrasound. Ultrasound may provide new information about muscle mass and function during swallowing.

Development, feasibility testing, and preliminary evaluation of the Communication with an Artificial airway Tool (CAT): Results of the Crit-CAT pilot study.

BACKGROUND: A purpose-built outcome measure for assessing communication effectiveness in patients with an artificial airway is needed. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop the Communication with an Artificial airway Tool (CAT) and to test the feasibility and to preliminary evaluate the clinical metrics of the tool. METHODS: Eligible patients with an artificial airway in the Intensive Care Unit were enrolled in the pilot study (Crit-CAT). The CAT was administered at least twice before and after the communication intervention. Item correlation analysis was performed. Participant and family member acceptability ratings and feedback were solicited. A qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with a mean age of 53 years (standard deviation [SD]: 19.26) were included. The clinician-reported scale was administered on 50 attempts (100%) with a mean completion time of 4.5 (SD: 0.77) minutes. The patient-reported scale was administered on 46 out of 49 attempts (94%) and took a mean of 1.5 (SD: 0.39) minutes to complete. The CAT was feasible for use in the Intensive Care Unit, with patients with either an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube, whilst receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or not, and while using either verbal or nonverbal modes of communication. Preliminary establishment of responsiveness, validity, and reliability was made. The tool was acceptable to participants and their family members. CONCLUSION: The clinician-reported and patient-reported components of the study were feasible for use. The CAT has the potential to enable quantifiable comparison of communication interventions for patients with an artificial airway. Future research is required to determine external validity and reliability.

High-flow via a tracheostomy tube and speaking valve during weaning from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy.

BACKGROUND: Weaning from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy after prolonged intensive care consume enormous resources with optimal management not currently well described. Restoration of respiratory flow via the upper airway is essential and early cuff-deflation using a one-way valve (OWV) is recommended. However, extended OWV use may cause dry airways and thickened secretions which challenge the weaning process. High-flow therapy via the tracheostomy tube (HFT-T) humidifies inspired air and may be connected via an in-line OWV (HFT-T-OWV) alleviating these problems. We aim to provide clinical and experimental data on the safety of HFT-T-OWV along with a practical guide to facilitate clinical use during weaning from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy. METHODS: Data on adverse events of HFT-T-OWV were retrieved from a quality register for patients treated at an intensive care rehabilitation center between 2019 and 2022. Benchtop experiments were performed to measure maximum pressures and pressure support generated by HFT-T-OWV at 25-60 L/min flow using two different HFT-T adapters (interfaces). In simulated airway obstruction using a standard OWV (not in-line) maximum pressures were measured with oxygen delivered via the side port at 1-3 L/min. RESULTS: Of 128 tracheostomized patients who underwent weaning attempts, 124 were treated with HFT-T-OWV. The therapy was well tolerated, and no adverse events related to the practice were detected. The main reason for not using HFT-T-OWV was partial upper airway obstruction using a OWV. Benchtop experiments demonstrated HFT-T-OWV maximum pressures <4 cmH2 O and pressure support 0-0.6 cmH2 O. In contrast, 1-3 L/min supplemental oxygen via a standard OWV caused pressures between 84 and 148 cmH2 O during simulated airway obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Current study clinical data and benchtop experiments indicate that HFT-T-OWV was well tolerated and appeared safe. Pressure support was low, but humidification may enable extended use of a OWV without dry airway mucosa and thickened secretions. Results suggest the treatment could offer advantages to standard OWV use, with or without supplementary oxygen, as well as to HFT-T without a OWV, for weaning from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy. However, for definitive treatment recommendations, randomized clinical trials are needed.

A protocol of an international validation study to assess the clinical accuracy of the eDIS-ICU delirium screening tool.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common, yet underdiagnosed neuropsychiatric complication of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Delirium can be difficult to diagnose, with gold standard assessments by a trained specialist being impractical and rarely performed. To address this, various tools have been developed, enabling bedside clinicians to assess for delirium efficiently and accurately. However, the performance of these tools varies depending on factors including the assessor's training. To address the shortcomings of current tools, electronic tools have been developed. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aims of this validation study are to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and generalisability of a recently developed and pilot-tested electronic delirium screening tool (eDIS-ICU) and compare diagnostic concordance, sensitivity, and specificity between eDIS-ICU, Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - 5th edition (DSM-V) gold standard in diverse ICU settings. METHODS: Seven hundred participants will be recruited across five sites in three countries. Participants will complete three assessments (eDIS-ICU, CAM-ICU, and DSM-V) twice within one 24-h period. At each time point, assessments will be completed within one hour. Assessments will be administered by three different people at any given time point, with the assessment order and assessor for eDIS-ICU and CAM-ICU randomly allocated. Assessors will be blinded to previous and concurrent assessment results. RESULTS: The primary outcome is comparing diagnostic sensitivity of eDIS-ICU and CAM-ICU against the DSM-V. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This protocol describes a definitive validation study of an electronic diagnostic tool to assess for delirium in the ICU. Delirium remains a common and difficult challenge in the ICU and is linked with multiple neurocognitive sequelae. Various challenges to routine assessment mean many cases are still unrecognised or misdiagnosed. An improved ability for bedside clinicians to screen for delirium accurately and efficiently will support earlier diagnosis, identification of underlying cause(s) and timely treatments, and ultimately improved patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) on 8th February 2022 (ACTRN12622000220763).

Benefits and options for voice restoration in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients with a tracheostomy.

Communication difficulties and their effects on patients who are mechanically ventilated are commonly reported and well described. The possibility of restoring speech for patients has obvious benefits, not only for meeting patient's immediate needs, but for helping them to re-engage in relationships and participate meaningfully in their recovery and rehabilitation. This opinion piece by a group of United Kingdom (UK) based Speech and Language Therapy experts working in critical care describes the various ways by which a patient's own voice can be restored. Common barriers to using different techniques and potential solutions are explored. We therefore hope that this will encourage intensive care unit (ICU) multi-disciplinary teams to advocate and facilitate early verbal communication in these patients.

Defining effective communication for critically ill patients with an artificial airway: An international multi-professional consensus.

OBJECTIVES: To define effective communication and identify its key elements specific to critically ill patients with an artificial airway. DESIGN: A modified Consensus Development Panel methodology. SETTING: International video-conferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Definition of effective communication and it's key elements. RESULTS: Eight experts across four international regions and three professions agreed to form the Consensus Development Panel together with a Chair and one person with lived experience who reviewed the outputs prior to finalisation. "Communication for critically ill adult patients with an artificial airway (endotracheal or tracheostomy tube) is defined as the degree in which a patient can initiate, impart, receive, and understand information, and can range from an ineffective to effective exchange of basic to complex information between the patient and the communication partner(s). Effective communication encompasses seven key elements including: comprehension, quantity, rate, effort, duration, independence, and satisfaction. In critically ill adults, communication is impacted by factors including medical, physical and cognitive status, delirium, fatigue, emotional status, the communication partner and the nature of the ICU environment (e.g., staff wearing personal protective equipment, noisy equipment, bright lights)." The panel agreed that communication occurs on a continuum from ineffective to effective for basic and complex communication. CONCLUSION: We developed a definition and list of key elements which constitute effective communication for critically ill patients with an artificial airway. These can be used as the basis of standard terminology to support future research on the development of communication-related outcome measurement tools in this population. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study provides international multi-professional consensus terminology and a definition of effective communication which can be used in clinical practice. This standard definition and key elements of effective communication can be included in our clinical impressions of patient communication, and be used in discussion with the patient themselves, their families and the multi-professional team, to guide care, goal development and intervention.

Dysphagia Management and Cervical Auscultation: Reliability and Validity Against FEES.

This study investigated the reliability and validity (sensitivity and specificity) of cervical auscultation (CA) using both swallow and pre-post swallow-respiratory sounds, as compared with Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). With 103 swallow-respiratory sequences from 23 heterogenic patients, these swallows sounds were rated by eight CA-trained Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) to investigate: (1) if the swallow was safe (primary outcome); (2) patient dysphagia status; (3) the influence of liquid viscosity on CA accuracy (secondary outcomes). Primary outcome data showed high CA sensitivity (85.4%), and specificity (80.3%) with all consistencies for the safe measurement, with CA predictive values of [Formula: see text] 90% to accurately detect unsafe swallows. Intra-rater reliability was good (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.65), inter rater reliability moderate (Kappa [Formula: see text] 0.58). Secondary outcome measures showed high sensitivity (80.1%) to identify if a patient was dysphagic, low specificity (22.9%), and moderate correlation (rs [Formula: see text] 0.62) with FEES. A difference across bolus viscosities identified that CA sensitivities (90.1%) and specificities ([Formula: see text] 84.7%) for thin liquids were greater than for thick liquids (71.0-77.4% sensitivities, 74.0-81.3% specificities). Results demonstrate high validity and moderate-good reliability of CA-trained SLPs to determine swallow safety when compared with FEES. Data support the use of CA as an adjunct to the clinical swallow examination. CA should include pre-post respiratory sounds and requires specific training. Clinical implications: The authors advocate for holistic dysphagia management including instrumental assessment and ongoing CSE/review [Formula: see text] CA. Adding CA to the CSE/review does not replace instrumental assessment, nor should CA be used as a stand-alone tool.

Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, which analysed the effect of tracheostomy timing and technique (surgical vs percutaneous) on mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), decannulation from tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and complications. METHODS: Four databases were screened between January 1, 2020 and January 10, 2022 (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane). Papers were selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Population or Problem, Intervention or exposure, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) guidelines. Meta-analysis and meta-regression for main outcomes were performed. RESULTS: The search yielded 9024 potentially relevant studies, of which 47 (n=5268 patients) were included. High levels of between-study heterogeneity were observed across study outcomes. The pooled mean tracheostomy timing was 16.5 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.7-18.4; I2=99.6%). Pooled mortality was 22.1% (95% CI: 18.7-25.5; I2=89.0%). Meta-regression did not show significant associations between mortality and tracheostomy timing, mechanical ventilation duration, time to decannulation, and tracheostomy technique. Pooled mean estimates for ICU and hospital LOS were 29.6 (95% CI: 24.0-35.2; I2=98.6%) and 38.8 (95% CI: 32.1-45.6; I2=95.7%) days, both associated with mechanical ventilation duration (coefficient 0.8 [95% CI: 0.2-1.4], P=0.02 and 0.9 [95% CI: 0.4-1.4], P=0.01, respectively) but not tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess tracheostomy technique on LOS. Duration of mechanical ventilation was 23.4 days (95% CI: 19.2-27.7; I2=99.3%), not associated with tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess the effect of tracheostomy technique on mechanical ventilation duration. Time to decannulation was 23.8 days (95% CI: 19.7-27.8; I2=98.7%), not influenced by tracheostomy timing or technique. The most common complications were stoma infection, ulcers or necrosis, and bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 requiring tracheostomy, the timing and technique of tracheostomy did not clearly impact on patient outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42021272220.

Communication Success and Speaking Valve Use in Intensive Care Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Communication with patients receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit can be challenging. Once a patient is tracheostomized, a speaking valve may enable restoration of verbal communication. To date, no data are available on the effect of speaking valves on communication success in intensive care units. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective cohort study was to measure communication success before and during speaking valve use for intensive care patients being weaned from mechanical ventilation, from both the nurses' and the patients' perspectives. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, consecutive eligible patients and their nurses were asked to complete newly developed questionnaires on communication success before and while patients used a speaking valve (6 questions for patients, 5 questions for nurses, answers on a 10-point scale with 10 the best score). The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze score differences. RESULTS: For all questionnaire items, both patients (n = 25) and nursing staff (n = 52) reported significantly higher communication success during speaking valve use. Nurses understood moderately well that their patients were in pain (median [IQR], 5.8 [4.7-7.4]) even before speaking valve use. Most patients found it challenging to say something quickly even while using a speaking valve (6.9 [5.7-10.0]). Overall, speaking valve use markedly increased communication success. CONCLUSION: A speaking valve should be considered for patients with a tracheostomy as soon as possible to improve their communication success.

Reply to Dziewas, R.; Bath, P.M. Endpoints in Dysphagia Trials. Comment on "Speyer et al. Neurostimulation in People with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials-Part I: Pharyngeal and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 776".

Our systematic review and meta-analysis of pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is the first paper (Part I) [...].

Neurostimulation in People with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials-Part II: Brain Neurostimulation.

Objective. To assess the effects of brain neurostimulation (i.e., repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS] and transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]) in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). Methods. Systematic literature searches were conducted in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed) to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. Using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2), the methodological quality of included studies was evaluated, after which meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Results. In total, 24 studies reporting on brain neurostimulation were included: 11 studies on rTMS, 9 studies on tDCS, and 4 studies on combined neurostimulation interventions. Overall, within-group meta-analysis and between-group analysis for rTMS identified significant large and small effects in favour of stimulation, respectively. For tDCS, overall within-group analysis and between-group analysis identified significant large and moderate effects in favour of stimulation, respectively. Conclusion. Both rTMS and tDCS show promising effects in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. However, comparisons between studies were challenging due to high heterogeneity in stimulation protocols and experimental parameters, potential moderators, and inconsistent methodological reporting. Generalisations of meta-analyses need to be interpreted with care. Future research should include large RCTs using standard protocols and reporting guidelines as achieved by international consensus.

Behavioural Interventions in People with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of behavioural interventions in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials in four different databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). The methodological quality of eligible articles was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2), after which meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 37 studies were included. Overall, a significant, large pre-post interventions effect size was found. To compare different types of interventions, all behavioural interventions and conventional dysphagia treatment comparison groups were categorised into compensatory, rehabilitative, and combined compensatory and rehabilitative interventions. Overall, significant treatment effects were identified favouring behavioural interventions. In particular, large effect sizes were found when comparing rehabilitative interventions with no dysphagia treatment, and combined interventions with compensatory conventional dysphagia treatment. When comparing selected interventions versus conventional dysphagia treatment, significant, large effect sizes were found in favour of Shaker exercise, chin tuck against resistance exercise, and expiratory muscle strength training. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural interventions show promising effects in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. However, due to high heterogeneity between studies, generalisations of meta-analyses need to be interpreted with care.

Neurostimulation in People with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials-Part I: Pharyngeal and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation.

Objective. To assess the effects of neurostimulation (i.e., neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES)) in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). Methods. Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomised controlled trials in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Results. In total, 42 studies reporting on peripheral neurostimulation were included: 30 studies on NMES, eight studies on PES, and four studies on combined neurostimulation interventions. When conducting meta analyses, significant, large and significant, moderate pre-post treatment effects were found for NMES (11 studies) and PES (five studies), respectively. Between-group analyses showed small effect sizes in favour of NMES, but no significant effects for PES. Conclusions. NMES may have more promising effects compared to PES. However, NMES studies showed high heterogeneity in protocols and experimental variables, the presence of potential moderators, and inconsistent reporting of methodology. Therefore, only conservative generalisations and interpretation of meta-analyses could be made. To facilitate comparisons of studies and determine intervention effects, there is a need for more randomised controlled trials with larger population sizes, and greater standardisation of protocols and guidelines for reporting.

Interventions to enable communication for adult patients requiring an artificial airway with or without mechanical ventilator support.

BACKGROUND: Inability to communicate in a manner that can be understood causes extreme distress for people requiring an artificial airway and has implications for care quality and patient safety. Options for aided communication include non-vocal, speech-generating, and voice-enabling aids. OBJECTIVES: To assess effectiveness of communication aids for people requiring an artificial airway (endotracheal or tracheostomy tube), defined as the proportion of people able to: use a non-vocal communication aid to communicate at least one symptom, need, or preference; or use a voice-enabling communication aid to phonate to produce at least one intelligible word. To assess time to communication/phonation; perceptions of communication; communication quality/success; quality of life; psychological distress; length of stay and costs; and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley version), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), three other databases, and grey literature from inception to 30 July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, controlled non-randomised parallel group, and before-after studies evaluating communication aids used in adults with an artificial airway. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies (1931 participants) conducted in intensive care units (ICUs). Eight evaluated non-vocal communication aids and three voice-enabling aids. Usual care was the comparator for all. For six studies, this comprised no aid; usual care in the remaining five studies comprised use of various communication aids. Overall, our confidence in results regarding effectiveness of communication interventions was very low due to imprecision, measurement heterogeneity, inconsistency in results, and most studies at high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. No non-vocal aid studies reported our primary outcome. We are uncertain of the effects of early use of a voice-enabling aid compared to routine use on ability to phonate at least one intelligible word (risk ratio (RR) 3.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 50.08; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care without aids, we are uncertain about effects of a non-vocal aid (communication board) on patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD) 2.92, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.33; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies of non-vocal aids reported quality of life. Low-certainty evidence from two studies suggests early use of a voice-enabling aid may have no effect on quality of life (MD 2.27, 95% CI -7.21 to 11.75). Conceptual differences in measures of psychological distress precluded data pooling; however, intervention arm participants reported less distress suggesting there might be benefit, but our certainty in the evidence is very low. Low-certainty evidence suggest voice-enabling aids have little or no effect on ICU length of stay; we were unable to determine effects of non-vocal aids. Three studies reported different adverse events (physical restraint use, bleeding following tracheostomy, and respiratory parameters indicating respiratory decompensation). Adverse event rates were similar between arms in all three studies. However, uncertainty remains as to any harm associated with communication aids. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to a lack of high-quality studies, imprecision, inconsistency of results, and measurement heterogeneity,  the evidence provides insufficient information to guide practice as to which communication aid is more appropriate and when to use them. Understanding effectiveness of communication aids would benefit from development of a core outcome measurement set.

Upper Airway Assessment for One-Way Valve Use in a Patient With a Tracheostomy.

[Figure: see text].

Screening for delirium in the intensive care unit using eDIS-ICU - A purpose-designed app: A pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Delirium, a common complication of an intensive care unit (ICU) admission, is inconsistently diagnosed by clinicians. Current screening tools require specialist expertise and/or training. Some are time-consuming to administer, and reliability in routine clinical practice is questionable. An innovative app designed to enable efficient and sensitive screening for delirium without specialist training (eDIS-ICU) has recently been described. This pilot study compared the eDIS-ICU against the reference standard expert assessment using DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) criteria and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). METHODS: In this prospective, single-centre pilot study, a convenience sample of 29 ICU patients were recruited at a tertiary referral hospital between November 2018 and August 2019. After obtaining written consent, demographic and clinical data were collected, and the patients were screened for delirium using eDIS-ICU and CAM-ICU by two clinician researchers in random order. The patients were also assessed for presence of delirium independently by an expert clinician using a structured interview to diagnose as per DSM-V criteria. The results of screening and diagnosis were tabulated to allow comparison of screening tools against diagnosis; sensitivity and specificity of the tools were calculated. RESULTS: Seven participants were diagnosed with delirium as per DSM-V criteria. The eDIS-ICU tool correctly identified six of these participants compared with two identified by CAM-ICU. The sensitivity of the eDIS-ICU tool was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.5-100.0) compared with 29% (95% CI = 5.1-69.7) for CAM-ICU (p < 0.05), and the specificity was 73% (95% CI = 81.5-100.0) versus 96% (95% CI = 75.1-99.8), respectively. CONCLUSION: The simple and novel eDIS-ICU delirium screening tool was noninferior to the CAM-ICU in detecting delirium as per DSM-V criteria. A definitive validation study is warranted.