No file available
To read the file of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Schlafqualität von erwachsenen Patient:innen auf Normalstationen im Krankenhaus sowie von Best-Practice Ansätzen zur nicht-pharmakologischen Schlafförderung im Krankenhaus – Sleep-Acute
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Background:
Data in the literature has shown poor sleep quality to be frequently observed in hospitalized patients and known to be associated with poor treatment outcome. Many factors may impact poor sleep quality, and there is currently limited available data. We aim to determine the prevalence of poor sleep quality and associated factors in patients admitted to internal medicine wards as well as the change of sleep quality over time after admission.
Methods:
An analytic observational study was conducted at the internal medicine wards at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Patients were personally interviewed to evaluate the history of sleep quality at home, sleep quality after the first and the third days of admission, and potential associated factors. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and screening questionnaires for the common diseases associated with poor sleep quality were also utilized. The logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent factors which led to poor sleep quality.
Results:
Data were collected from 96 patients during the period of June 2015 to February 2016. The mean age of the patients was 50.8 ± 16.7 years, and 51% were male. Infectious disease was the most common principal diagnosis accounted for 29.2%. The results show high prevalence of poor sleep quality after the first night of admission compared to baseline sleep quality at home (50% vs. 18.8%; p < 0.001). After 3 days of admission, the prevalence of poor sleep quality was reduced to the level close to baseline sleep quality at home (28.1% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.13). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that light exposure and pain were the main independent factors for poor sleep quality on the first day (odds ratio 6.68; 95% CI 2.25-19.84) and on the third day (odds ratio 3.47; 95% CI 1.24-9.71), respectively.
Conclusions:
This is the first study conducted on the sleep quality of hospitalized patients that included the follow-up period during hospital admission. Our study demonstrated high prevalence of poor sleep quality in hospitalized patients on the first day. Interestingly, the sleep quality was partly improved during hospitalization. Light exposure and pain were demonstrated to be the factors associated with poor sleep quality.
Purpose
Although it is generally recognized that poor sleep is common in the intensive care unit (ICU), it is still unclear which interventions can effectively improve sleep in this setting. In this review, we critically analyze the various pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures that have been proposed to tackle this problem.
Methods
A search of MEDLINE/PubMed, SciELO, and the Brazilian Virtual Library in Health (LILACS and BNDEF) databases was performed. Results were reviewed and 41 articles on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to promote sleep in ICU were analyzed.
Results
Non-pharmacological interventions including eye mask and earplugs, bundles to reduce noise and lighting, and organization of patient care were shown to improve subjective and objective sleep quality, although the level of evidence was considered low. Assist-control ventilation was associated with a greater objective sleep quality than spontaneous modes, such as pressure support ventilation and proportional assist ventilation. Among pharmacological interventions, a moderate level of evidence was found for oral melatonin, with increases in both objective and subjective sleep quality. Continuous nocturnal infusion of dexmedetomidine was reported to increase sleep efficiency and favorably modify the sleep pattern, although evidence level was moderate to low.
Conclusions
Several non-pharmacological and pharmacological measures can be helpful to improve sleep in critical patients. Further high-quality studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base.
Importance
Although inadequate sleep has a proven negative association with health care outcomes, to date, no large-scale studies have examined sleep in general hospital wards.
Objectives
To assess the subjective quantity and quality of sleep and to identify the hospital-related factors associated with sleep disturbances in hospitalized patients.
Design
For this nationwide, single-day, multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study, which took place on February 22, 2017, all hospitals in the Netherlands were encouraged by word of mouth and conventional and social media to participate in this study. A total of 39 hospitals participated. Included patients were at least 18 years of age, were able to give informed consent, and had spent at least 1 night in a regular-care hospital ward.
Exposures
Hospitalization in a regular-care ward.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Quantity and quality of last night's sleep in the hospital compared with habitual sleep at home the month before hospitalization. The Consensus Sleep Diary and the Dutch-Flemish Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sleep Disturbance item bank were used. Complementary questions assessed sleep-disturbing factors.
Results
A total of 2005 patients were included (median age, 68 years; interquartile range, 57-77 years; 994 of 1935 [51.4%] were male [70 patients did not identify their sex]). Compared with habitual sleep at home, the total sleep time in the hospital was 83 minutes (95% CI, 75-92 minutes; P < .001) shorter. The mean number of nocturnal awakenings was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.9-2.1) times at home vs 3.3 (95% CI, 3.2-3.5) times during hospitalization (P < .001). Patients woke up 44 minutes (95% CI, 44-45 minutes; P < .001) earlier than their habitual wake-up time at home. A total of 1344 patients (70.4%) reported having been awakened by external causes, which in 718 (35.8%) concerned hospital staff. All aspects of sleep quality measured using PROMIS questions were rated worse during hospitalization than at home. The most reported sleep-disturbing factors were noise of other patients, medical devices, pain, and toilet visits.
Conclusions and Relevance
This study demonstrated that the duration and quality of sleep in hospitalized patients were significantly affected and revealed many potentially modifiable hospital-related factors negatively associated with sleep. Raising awareness about the importance of adequate sleep in the vulnerable hospital population and introducing interventions to target sleep-disturbing factors may improve healing.
To present an expert consensus, standardized, patient-informed sleep diary.
Sleep diaries from the original expert panel of 25 attendees of the Pittsburgh Assessment Conference(1) were collected and reviewed. A smaller subset of experts formed a committee and reviewed the compiled diaries. Items deemed essential were included in a Core sleep diary, and those deemed optional were retained for an expanded diary. Secondly, optional items would be available in other versions. A draft of the Core and optional versions along with a feedback questionnaire were sent to members of the Pittsburgh Assessment Conference. The feedback from the group was integrated and the diary drafts were subjected to 6 focus groups composed of good sleepers, people with insomnia, and people with sleep apnea. The data were summarized into themes and changes to the drafts were made in response to the focus groups. The resultant draft was evaluated by another focus group and subjected to lexile analyses. The lexile analyses suggested that the Core diary instructions are at a sixth-grade reading level and the Core diary was written at a third-grade reading level.
The Consensus Sleep Diary was the result of collaborations with insomnia experts and potential users. The adoption of a standard sleep diary for insomnia will facilitate comparisons across studies and advance the field. The proposed diary is intended as a living document which still needs to be tested, refined, and validated.
To develop an archive of self-report questions assessing sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairments (SRI), to develop item banks from this archive, and to validate and calibrate the item banks using classic validation techniques and item response theory analyses in a sample of clinical and community participants.
Cross-sectional self-report study.
Academic medical center and participant homes.
One thousand nine hundred ninety-three adults recruited from an Internet polling sample and 259 adults recruited from medical, psychiatric, and sleep clinics.
None.
This study was part of PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System), a National Institutes of Health Roadmap initiative. Self-report item banks were developed through an iterative process of literature searches, collecting and sorting items, expert content review, qualitative patient research, and pilot testing. Internal consistency, convergent validity, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were examined in the resulting item banks. Factor analyses identified 2 preliminary item banks, sleep disturbance and SRI. Item response theory analyses and expert content review narrowed the item banks to 27 and 16 items, respectively. Validity of the item banks was supported by moderate to high correlations with existing scales and by significant differences in sleep disturbance and SRI scores between participants with and without sleep disorders.
The PROMIS sleep disturbance and SRI item banks have excellent measurement properties and may prove to be useful for assessing general aspects of sleep and SRI with various groups of patients and interventions.
Poor and fragmented sleep is a common problem amongst patients hospitalized on medical wards, and is associated with a number of poor outcomes. The present study aimed to objectively measure night-time sleep duration and efficiency in an acute medical ward, and to identify barriers to sleep in this setting.
Fifty-four consecutive patients on an acute medical ward were observed with wearable actigraphy devices for one night, then administered the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire and a semi-qualitative questionnaire to determine the major barriers to sleep.
Patients had a wide variety of reasons for admission. Mean overnight sleep duration was 4.6 hours, with mean sleep efficiency 63%. The Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire mean was 52/100, indicating poor quality sleep. Major barriers to sleep identified were the need to urinate, pain, noise, and light.
A mixture of environmental and illness-related factors contribute to poor sleep in the hospital setting. Further research looking at ameliorating these factors may improve sleep and recovery in this population.
Background:
Sleep is a vital part to healing and recovery, hence poor sleep during hospitalizations is highly undesirable. Few studies have assessed interventions to optimize sleep among hospitalized patients.
Objective:
To assess the effect of sleep-promoting interventions on sleep quality and duration among hospitalized patients.
Design:
Quasi-experimental prospective study.
Setting:
Academic medical center.
Participants:
Adult patients on the general medicine ward.
Intervention:
Nurse-delivered sleep-promoting interventions augmented by sleep hygiene education and environmental control to minimize sleep disruption.
Measurements:
Objective and subjective measurement of sleep parameters using validated sleep questionnaires, daily sleep diary, and actigraphy monitor.
Results:
Of the 112 patients studied, the mean age was 58 years, 55% were female, the mean body mass index was 32, and 43% were in the intervention group. Linear mixed models tested mean differences in 7 sleep measures and group differences in slopes representing nightly changes in sleep outcomes over the course of hospitalization between intervention and control groups. Only total sleep time, computed from sleep diaries, demonstrated significant overall mean difference of 49.6 minutes (standard error [SE] = 21.1, P < 0.05). However, significant differences in average slopes of subjective ratings of sleep quality (0.46, SE = 0.18, P < 0.05), refreshing sleep (0.54, SE = 0.19, P < 0.05), and sleep interruptions (-1.6, SE = 0.6, P < 0.05) indicated improvements during hospitalization within intervention patients compared to controls.
Conclusion:
This study demonstrated that there is an opportunity to identify patients not sleeping well in the hospital. Sleep-promoting initiatives, both at the unit level as well as individualized offerings, may improve sleep during hospitalizations, particularly over the course of the hospitalization. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:467-472. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.
To identify barriers to sleep for intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.
Nurses and physicians who had experience working the night shift.
None.
Multiple environmental barriers to sleep in the ICU were identified when participants were directly asked about factors affecting sleep. Responses highlighted healthcare system-based barriers related to hospital/ICU policy and workflow. Implicit barriers to sleep were found when participants responded to open-ended questions. These included attitudinal barriers such as the uncertainty about the significance of sleep, the tension between providing protocol-driven ICU care and allowing uninterrupted patient sleep, and lack of consensus regarding interventions to promote sleep.
This qualitative study suggests that health care worker attitudes, methods of sleep promotion, hospital institutional policies and workflow may contribute to sleep disruption in the ICU. These barriers provide additional targets for intervention in studies designed to improve sleep in the ICU.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.