Vidatak EZ交流板在ICU语言交流障碍患者中的应用研究

目的：分析Vidatak EZ交流板在内科ICU语言交流障碍患者中的应用情况.方法：ICU机械通气的内科疾病患者232例随机分为实验组（117例）和对照组（115例）,医护人员采用Vidatak EZ交流板与实验组交流,图片卡与对照组交流.记录交流情况,包括患者需求、需求沟通时间、需求解决情况.气管插管或气管套管拔除72 h内,询问并记录患者的交流满意度.比较2组患者机械通气时间、监护时间、住院时间和治疗结果.结果：2组患者的一般情况、所患疾病分类及交流工具使用率的差异无统计学意义（均P〉0.05）.最常见9类需求依次为疼痛、疼痛部位、气促、排小便、排大便、口渴、松约束带、见家人、见医生.除＂疼痛＂沟通时间外,实验组解决其它8类需求所需时间均短于对照组（均P〈0.05）.需求解决情况比较显示,实验组需求妥善解决的比例高于对照组58.3%（1827/3134）vs 39.9%（1226/3072）,P〈0.01],而基本解决的比例低于对照组36.3%（1141/3143）vs 53.7%（1650/3072）,P〈0.01].患者交流满意度比较显示,实验组交流满意度为很满意的比例高于对照组22.4%（17/76）vs 12.3%（9/73）,P〈0.01],满意的比例亦高于对照组34.2%（26/76）vs 28.8%（21/73）,P〈0.05].2组患者机械通气时间、监护时间、住院时间和治疗结果比较,差异无统计学意义（均P〉0.05）.结论：Vidatak EZ交流板能够改善医护人员与ICU内科疾病机械通气患者交流.

Use of Vidatak EZ board in communication with verbally compromised ICU patients

Objective ：To explore the use of Vidatak EZ board in communication with verbally compromised ICU patients. Methods：232 1CU patients on mechanical ventilation were randomly divided into two groups： experimental group（n = 117） and control group （n = 115 ）. We communicated with the experiment group by using Vidatak EZ board and with the control group by picture card. After communication, bealthcare providers recorded the needs of patients, duration of communication, and whether the needs had been met. Within 72 hours after extubation, the patients were surveyed for their content with the communication. In addition, we compared the duration of mechanical ventilation,length of ICU and hospital stay, and treatment outcomes between the both groups. Results： No statistical differences in general condition,nosology and use of communication tools were noted between the two groups of patients （ all P 〉 0.05 ）. The most common 9 types of information communicated were pain,the location of pain, shortness of breath, desire to urinate, want to defecate, feeling thirsty, the need to be unconstrained,to see a family member, or to see the doctor. Except for communication of pains, communication durations for other information in the experimental group were significantly shorter than in the control group（ all P 〈 0.05 ）. The needs of patients in experimental group were more likely to be ＂properly met＂ 58.3% （1827/3134） vs 39.9% （1226/3072） ,P 〈0.01 ] and less likely to ＂partly met＂ 36.3% （ 1141/3143 ） vs 53.7% （1650/3072）, P 〈0.01 ] as compared with those in the control group. The rate of patient content with the communication was higher in the experimental group than in control group, either in terms of ＂much satisfactory＂ 22.4% （17/76） vs 12.3% （9/73） ,P 〈0.01 ] or ＂satisfactory＂ 34.2% （26/76） vs 28.8% （21/73） ,P 〈0. 05 ]. The duration of mechanical ventilation, lengths of ICU and hospital stay, and treatment outcomes between both groups were statistically comparable（ all P 〉 0.05 ）. Conclusion： Vidatak EZ board may facilitate communication between healthcare providers and ICU patients on mechanical ventilation.