Noise in the intensive care unit and its influence on sleep quality: a multicenter observational study in Dutch intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: High noise levels in the intensive care unit (ICU) are a well-known problem. Little is known about the effect of noise on sleep quality in ICU patients. The study aim is to determine the effect of noise on subjective sleep quality. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational study in six Dutch ICUs. Noise recording equipment was installed in 2-4 rooms per ICU. Adult patients were eligible for the study 48 h after ICU admission and were followed up to maximum of five nights in the ICU. Exclusion criteria were presence of delirium and/or inability to be assessed for sleep quality. Sleep was evaluated using the Richards Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (range 0-100 mm). Noise recordings were used for analysis of various auditory parameters, including the number and duration of restorative periods. Hierarchical mixed model regression analysis was used to determine associations between noise and sleep. RESULTS: In total, 64 patients (68% male), mean age 63.9 (± 11.7) years and mean Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score 21.1 (± 7.1) were included. Average sleep quality score was 56 ± 24 mm. The mean of the 24-h average sound pressure levels (LAeq, 24h) was 54.0 dBA (± 2.4). Mixed-effects regression analyses showed that background noise (ß = - 0.51, p < 0.05) had a negative impact on sleep quality, whereas number of restorative periods (ß = 0.53, p < 0.01) and female sex (ß = 1.25, p < 0.01) were weakly but significantly correlated with sleep. CONCLUSIONS: Noise levels are negatively associated and restorative periods and female gender are positively associated with subjective sleep quality in ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826799 . Registered on 9 April 2013.

Reducing administrative burden by implementing a core set of quality indicators in the ICU: a multicentre longitudinal intervention study.

BACKGROUND: The number of quality indicators for which clinicians need to record data is increasing. For many indicators, there are concerns about their efficacy. This study aimed to determine whether working with only a consensus-based core set of quality indicators in the intensive care unit (ICU) reduces the time spent on documenting performance data and administrative burden of ICU professionals, and if this is associated with more joy in work without impacting the quality of ICU care. METHODS: Between May 2021 and June 2023, ICU clinicians of seven hospitals in the Netherlands were instructed to only document data for a core set of quality indicators. Time spent on documentation, administrative burden and joy in work were collected at three time points with validated questionnaires. Longitudinal data on standardised mortality rates (SMR) and ICU readmission rates were gathered from the Dutch National Intensive Care registry. Longitudinal effects and differences in outcomes between ICUs and between nurses and physicians were statistically tested. RESULTS: A total of 390 (60%), 291 (47%) and 236 (40%) questionnaires returned at T0, T1 and T2. At T2, the overall median time spent on documentation per day was halved by 30 min (p<0.01) and respondents reported fewer unnecessary and unreasonable administrative tasks (p<0.01). Almost one-third still experienced unnecessary administrative tasks. No significant changes over time were found in joy in work, SMR and ICU readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a core set of quality indicators reduces the time ICU clinicians spend on documentation and administrative burden without negatively affecting SMR or ICU readmission rates. Time savings can be invested in patient care and improving joy in work in the ICU.

Time spent on documenting quality indicator data and associations between the perceived burden of documenting these data and joy in work among professionals in intensive care units in the Netherlands: a multicentre cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: The number of indicators used to monitor and improve the quality of care is debatable and may influence professionals' joy in work. We aimed to assess intensive care unit (ICU) professionals' perceived burden of documenting quality indicator data and its association with joy in work. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: ICUs of eight hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Health professionals (ie, medical specialists, residents and nurses) working in the ICU. MEASUREMENTS: The survey included reported time spent on documenting quality indicator data and validated measures for documentation burden (ie, such documentation being unreasonable and unnecessary) and elements of joy in work (ie, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, autonomy, relatedness and competence). Multivariable regression analysis was performed for each element of joy in work as a separate outcome. RESULTS: In total, 448 ICU professionals responded to the survey (65% response rate). The overall median time spent on documenting quality data per working day is 60 min (IQR 30-90). Nurses spend more time documenting these data than physicians (medians of 60 min vs 35 min, p<0.01). Most professionals (n=259, 66%) often perceive such documentation tasks as unnecessary and a minority (n=71, 18%) perceive them as unreasonable. No associations between documentation burden and measures of joy in work were found, except for the negative association between unnecessary documentations and sense of autonomy (ß=-0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Dutch ICU professionals spend substantial time on documenting quality indicator data they often regard as unnecessary. Despite the lacking necessity, documentation burden had limited impact on joy in work. Future research should focus on which aspects of work are affected by documentation burden and whether diminishing the burden improves joy in work.

The impact of hospital type on the efficacy of chemotherapy treatment in ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The hospital type affects the surgical outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. In the present study, we wanted to investigate the effect of hospital type on chemotherapy efficacy. METHODS: Data were collected from 1077 ovarian cancer patients treated from 1996 to 2003 in a random sample of 18 Dutch hospitals. Hospitals were categorized by the number of medical oncologists working in a hospital and additionally by chemotherapy volume (< or =100, 101-200, or >200 patients yearly) and ovarian cancer patient-volume (< or =6, 7-12, >12 yearly). The outcomes were the proportions of patients achieving complete remission, recurrence rates, and disease-free and overall survival. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression (complete remission and recurrence) and Cox regression (survival). RESULTS: Data of 761 of the 777 patients who received chemotherapy could be analyzed. Hospital type did not affect the complete remission rates, recurrence rates, or the disease-free survival. Overall survival was better in hospitals with 2 or more medical oncologists and in hospitals with a high ovarian cancer patient-volume (hazard ratios both 0.8 (95% confidence interval=0.7-1.0)). CONCLUSIONS: Thus, hospital type did not influence the outcomes of first-line chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients. However, overall survival was better in hospitals with 2 or more medical oncologists and in hospitals with a high ovarian cancer patient-volume, suggesting differences in second-line chemotherapy.