Communication aid requirements of intensive care unit patients with transient speech loss
Abstract
Alert and transiently nonvocal intensive care unit (ICU) patients are dependent on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Unfortunately, the literature demonstrates that existent AAC devices have not been widely adopted, and unaided methods are often the primary modalities used despite being insufficient, and frustrating. We present the results of a qualitative semi-structured interview study with 8 ex-ICU patients, 4 ICU patient relatives, and 6 ICU staff, exploring their AAC needs and requirements. Participants identified important AAC hardware, software, and content requirements. Salient factors impacting on AAC adoption in the ICU setting were also highlighted and included the need for staff training and bedside patient assessment. Based on the study results, we propose a series of recommendations regarding the design and implementation of future AAC tools specifically targeted at this group.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For ICU staff, large tablets were too bulky to carry around due to the small pockets of their scrubs; they preferred small tablets that are portable or larger mobile phones for remote patient monitoring in the ICU.
“However, for ICU staff, large tablets were too bulky to carry around due to the small pockets of their scrubs; they instead preferred small tablets that are portable [42] or larger mobile phones for remote patient monitoring in the ICU.”
From Clinical requirements of future patient monitoring in the intensive care unit: qualitative study (2019) · cites this paper as [42]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Mobasheri, M. H., King, D., Judge, S., Arshad, F., Larsen, M., Safarfashandi, Z., Shah, H., Trepekli, A., Trikha, S., Xylas, D., Brett, S. J., & Darzi, A.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mobasheri, Mohammad H.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Augmentative and Alternative Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 261-271
- ISSN
- 0743-4618 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-3848
- OpenAlex
- W2549672415
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 14.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Augmentative and Alternative Communication (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- intensive care unit patients, employee training, patient and family perspectives
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Allied Health Personnel, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Communication Aids for Disabled, Family, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Medical Staff, Hospital, Middle Aged, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Speech Disorders, Speech Therapy, Tracheostomy, Needs Assessment, Qualitative Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review