Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 30;21(5):464-472.
doi: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab099.

A multi-intervention protocol to improve sleep quality in a coronary care unit

Affiliations

A multi-intervention protocol to improve sleep quality in a coronary care unit

Flávia Gabe Beltrami et al. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. .

Abstract

Aims: Poor sleep is a frequent occurrence in the critical illness. Evaluate sleep quality and test the effect of a multi-intervention sleep care protocol in improving sleep quality in a coronary care unit (CCU).

Methods and results: Quasi-experimental study, carried out in two phases. During the first phase, the control group (n = 58 patients) received usual care. Baseline sleep data were collected through the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) and the Sleep in the Intensive Care Unit Questionnaire (SICUQ). During the second phase (n = 55 patients), a sleep care protocol was implemented. Interventions included actions to promote analgesia, reduce noise, brightness, and other general measures. Sleep data were collected again to assess the impact of these interventions. The intervention group had better scores in overall sleep depth [median (interquartile range)] [81 (65-96.7) vs. 69.7 (50-90); P = 0.046]; sleep fragmentation [90 (65-100) vs. 69 (42.2-92.7); P = 0.011]; return to sleep [90 (69.7-100) vs. 71.2 (40.7-96.5); P = 0.007]; sleep quality [85 (65-100) vs. 71.1 (49-98.1); P = 0.026]; and mean RCSQ score [83 (66-94) vs. 66.5 (45.7-87.2); P = 0.002] than the baseline group. The main barriers to sleep were pain [1 (1.0-5.5)], light [1 (1.0-5.0)], and noise [1 (1.0-5.0)]. The most rated sources of sleep-disturbing noise were heart monitor alarm [3 (1.0-5.25)], intravenous pump alarm [1.5 (1.0-5.00)]. and mechanical ventilator alarm [1 (1.0-5.0)]. All were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the baseline group.

Conclusion: A multi-intervention protocol was feasible and effective in improving different sleep quality parameters and reducing some barriers to sleep in CCU patients.

Keywords: Coronary care; Critical patients; Sleep; Sleep care protocol; Sleep quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types