stress Archives - Critical Care Science (CCS)
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2016;28(3):323-329
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20160055
To identify and stratify the main stressors for the relatives of patients admitted to the adult intensive care unit of a teaching hospital.
Cross-sectional descriptive study conducted with relatives of patients admitted to an intensive care unit from April to October 2014. The following materials were used: a questionnaire containing identification information and demographic data of the relatives, clinical data of the patients, and 25 stressors adapted from the Intensive Care Unit Environmental Stressor Scale. The degree of stress caused by each factor was determined on a scale of values from 1 to 4. The stressors were ranked based on the average score obtained.
The main cause of admission to the intensive care unit was clinical in 36 (52.2%) cases. The main stressors were the patient being in a state of coma (3.15 ± 1.23), the patient being unable to speak (3.15 ± 1.20), and the reason for admission (3.00 ± 1.27). After removing the 27 (39.1%) coma patients from the analysis, the main stressors for the relatives were the reason for admission (2.75 ± 1.354), seeing the patient in the intensive care unit (2.51 ± 1.227), and the patient being unable to speak (2.50 ± 1.269).
Difficulties in communication and in the relationship with the patient admitted to the intensive care unit were identified as the main stressors by their relatives, with the state of coma being predominant. By contrast, the environment, work routines, and relationship between the relatives and intensive care unit team had the least impact as stressors.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2016;28(3):323-329
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20160055
To identify and stratify the main stressors for the relatives of patients admitted to the adult intensive care unit of a teaching hospital.
Cross-sectional descriptive study conducted with relatives of patients admitted to an intensive care unit from April to October 2014. The following materials were used: a questionnaire containing identification information and demographic data of the relatives, clinical data of the patients, and 25 stressors adapted from the Intensive Care Unit Environmental Stressor Scale. The degree of stress caused by each factor was determined on a scale of values from 1 to 4. The stressors were ranked based on the average score obtained.
The main cause of admission to the intensive care unit was clinical in 36 (52.2%) cases. The main stressors were the patient being in a state of coma (3.15 ± 1.23), the patient being unable to speak (3.15 ± 1.20), and the reason for admission (3.00 ± 1.27). After removing the 27 (39.1%) coma patients from the analysis, the main stressors for the relatives were the reason for admission (2.75 ± 1.354), seeing the patient in the intensive care unit (2.51 ± 1.227), and the patient being unable to speak (2.50 ± 1.269).
Difficulties in communication and in the relationship with the patient admitted to the intensive care unit were identified as the main stressors by their relatives, with the state of coma being predominant. By contrast, the environment, work routines, and relationship between the relatives and intensive care unit team had the least impact as stressors.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2015;27(1):18-25
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20150005
To evaluate and compare stressors identified by patients of a coronary intensive care unit with those perceived by patients of a general postoperative intensive care unit.
This cross-sectional and descriptive study was conducted in the coronary intensive care and general postoperative intensive care units of a private hospital. In total, 60 patients participated in the study, 30 in each intensive care unit. The stressor scale was used in the intensive care units to identify the stressors. The mean score of each item of the scale was calculated followed by the total stress score. The differences between groups were considered significant when p < 0.05.
The mean ages of patients were 55.63 ± 13.58 years in the coronary intensive care unit and 53.60 ± 17.47 years in the general postoperative intensive care unit. For patients in the coronary intensive care unit, the main stressors were “being in pain”, “being unable to fulfill family roles” and “being bored”. For patients in the general postoperative intensive care unit, the main stressors were “being in pain”, “being unable to fulfill family roles” and “not being able to communicate”. The mean total stress scores were 104.20 ± 30.95 in the coronary intensive care unit and 116.66 ± 23.72 (p = 0.085) in the general postoperative intensive care unit. When each stressor was compared separately, significant differences were noted only between three items. “Having nurses constantly doing things around your bed” was more stressful to the patients in the general postoperative intensive care unit than to those in the coronary intensive care unit (p = 0.013). Conversely, “hearing unfamiliar sounds and noises” and “hearing people talk about you” were the most stressful items for the patients in the coronary intensive care unit (p = 0.046 and 0.005, respectively).
The perception of major stressors and the total stress score were similar between patients in the coronary intensive care and general postoperative intensive care units.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2015;27(1):18-25
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20150005
To evaluate and compare stressors identified by patients of a coronary intensive care unit with those perceived by patients of a general postoperative intensive care unit.
This cross-sectional and descriptive study was conducted in the coronary intensive care and general postoperative intensive care units of a private hospital. In total, 60 patients participated in the study, 30 in each intensive care unit. The stressor scale was used in the intensive care units to identify the stressors. The mean score of each item of the scale was calculated followed by the total stress score. The differences between groups were considered significant when p < 0.05.
The mean ages of patients were 55.63 ± 13.58 years in the coronary intensive care unit and 53.60 ± 17.47 years in the general postoperative intensive care unit. For patients in the coronary intensive care unit, the main stressors were “being in pain”, “being unable to fulfill family roles” and “being bored”. For patients in the general postoperative intensive care unit, the main stressors were “being in pain”, “being unable to fulfill family roles” and “not being able to communicate”. The mean total stress scores were 104.20 ± 30.95 in the coronary intensive care unit and 116.66 ± 23.72 (p = 0.085) in the general postoperative intensive care unit. When each stressor was compared separately, significant differences were noted only between three items. “Having nurses constantly doing things around your bed” was more stressful to the patients in the general postoperative intensive care unit than to those in the coronary intensive care unit (p = 0.013). Conversely, “hearing unfamiliar sounds and noises” and “hearing people talk about you” were the most stressful items for the patients in the coronary intensive care unit (p = 0.046 and 0.005, respectively).
The perception of major stressors and the total stress score were similar between patients in the coronary intensive care and general postoperative intensive care units.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2015;27(2):125-133
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20150023
To evaluate the prevalence of burnout syndrome among nursing workers in intensive care units and establish associations with psychosocial factors.
This descriptive study evaluated 130 professionals, including nurses, nursing technicians, and nursing assistants, who performed their activities in intensive care and coronary care units in 2 large hospitals in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Data were collected in 2011 using a self-reported questionnaire. The Maslach Burnout Inventory was used to evaluate the burnout syndrome dimensions, and the Self Reporting Questionnaire was used to evaluate common mental disorders.
The prevalence of burnout syndrome was 55.3% (n = 72). In the quadrants of the demand-control model, low-strain workers exhibited a prevalence of 64.5% of suspected cases of burnout, whereas high-strain workers exhibited a prevalence of 72.5% of suspected cases (p = 0.006). The prevalence of suspected cases of common mental disorders was 27.7%; of these, 80.6% were associated with burnout syndrome (< 0.0001). The multivariate analysis adjusted for gender, age, educational level, weekly work duration, income, and thoughts about work during free time indicated that the categories associated with intermediate stress levels - active work (OR = 0.26; 95%CI = 0.09 - 0.69) and passive work (OR = 0.22; 95%CI = 0.07 - 0.63) - were protective factors for burnout syndrome.
Psychosocial factors were associated with the development of burnout syndrome in this group. These results underscore the need for the development of further studies aimed at intervention and the prevention of the syndrome.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2015;27(2):125-133
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20150023
To evaluate the prevalence of burnout syndrome among nursing workers in intensive care units and establish associations with psychosocial factors.
This descriptive study evaluated 130 professionals, including nurses, nursing technicians, and nursing assistants, who performed their activities in intensive care and coronary care units in 2 large hospitals in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Data were collected in 2011 using a self-reported questionnaire. The Maslach Burnout Inventory was used to evaluate the burnout syndrome dimensions, and the Self Reporting Questionnaire was used to evaluate common mental disorders.
The prevalence of burnout syndrome was 55.3% (n = 72). In the quadrants of the demand-control model, low-strain workers exhibited a prevalence of 64.5% of suspected cases of burnout, whereas high-strain workers exhibited a prevalence of 72.5% of suspected cases (p = 0.006). The prevalence of suspected cases of common mental disorders was 27.7%; of these, 80.6% were associated with burnout syndrome (< 0.0001). The multivariate analysis adjusted for gender, age, educational level, weekly work duration, income, and thoughts about work during free time indicated that the categories associated with intermediate stress levels - active work (OR = 0.26; 95%CI = 0.09 - 0.69) and passive work (OR = 0.22; 95%CI = 0.07 - 0.63) - were protective factors for burnout syndrome.
Psychosocial factors were associated with the development of burnout syndrome in this group. These results underscore the need for the development of further studies aimed at intervention and the prevention of the syndrome.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2008;20(3):235-240
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2008000300005
OBJECTIVES: Burnout syndrome is a response to prolonged occupational stress that involves three main dimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. The aim of this study was to describe socio-demographic characteristics of intensive care unit physicians and evaluate factors associated to the presence of Burnout syndrome in this population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed to evaluate physicians who have worked in intensive care units from the city of Salvador (Bahia - Brazil) with a minimum weekly workload of 12-hour. An anonymous self-reported questionnaire was used and it was divided into two parts: socio-demographic characteristics and evaluation of Burnout syndrome through Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: We studied 297 physicians and most of them were male (70%). The mean age and time of graduation were, respectively, 34.2 and 9 years. High levels of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment were found in respectively, 47.5%, 24.6% and 28.3%. The prevalence of Burnout syndrome, considered as high level in at least one dimension, was of 63.3%. This prevalence was statistically lower in physicians specialized on intensive care, those with more than nine years of graduation and those who intend to continue working in intensive care units for more than 10 years. The prevalence was higher in the doctors with more than 24-hours of uninterrupted intensive care work per week. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout syndrome was common among intensive care physicians and it was more frequent in the youngest doctors, with higher workload and without specialization on intensive care.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2008;20(3):235-240
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2008000300005
OBJECTIVES: Burnout syndrome is a response to prolonged occupational stress that involves three main dimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. The aim of this study was to describe socio-demographic characteristics of intensive care unit physicians and evaluate factors associated to the presence of Burnout syndrome in this population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed to evaluate physicians who have worked in intensive care units from the city of Salvador (Bahia - Brazil) with a minimum weekly workload of 12-hour. An anonymous self-reported questionnaire was used and it was divided into two parts: socio-demographic characteristics and evaluation of Burnout syndrome through Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: We studied 297 physicians and most of them were male (70%). The mean age and time of graduation were, respectively, 34.2 and 9 years. High levels of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment were found in respectively, 47.5%, 24.6% and 28.3%. The prevalence of Burnout syndrome, considered as high level in at least one dimension, was of 63.3%. This prevalence was statistically lower in physicians specialized on intensive care, those with more than nine years of graduation and those who intend to continue working in intensive care units for more than 10 years. The prevalence was higher in the doctors with more than 24-hours of uninterrupted intensive care work per week. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout syndrome was common among intensive care physicians and it was more frequent in the youngest doctors, with higher workload and without specialization on intensive care.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2008;20(3):261-266
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2008000300009
OBJECTIVES: Bibliographic review on occupational stress and burnout presence in physicians and nurses that work in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units. METHODS: The articles were selected from the MedLine, LILACS and SciElo data base using the key words: stress, burnout, physicians, nursing, intensive care unit, pediatric intensive care unit and neonatal intensive care unit. The studied period ranged from 1990 to 2007. RESULTS: Health professionals who work in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units are strong candidates for developing stress, psychological alterations and burnout syndrome. Researches on this subject identified important alterations suffered by these physicians and nurses, such as: work overload, burnout, desires of giving up their jobs, high levels of cortisol, among other alterations. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals, who work in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units, due to the specificity of their job, are liable to develop occupational stress, and consequently burnout. These results suggest the need for further research with the objective of developing preventive measures and intervention models.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2008;20(3):261-266
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2008000300009
OBJECTIVES: Bibliographic review on occupational stress and burnout presence in physicians and nurses that work in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units. METHODS: The articles were selected from the MedLine, LILACS and SciElo data base using the key words: stress, burnout, physicians, nursing, intensive care unit, pediatric intensive care unit and neonatal intensive care unit. The studied period ranged from 1990 to 2007. RESULTS: Health professionals who work in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units are strong candidates for developing stress, psychological alterations and burnout syndrome. Researches on this subject identified important alterations suffered by these physicians and nurses, such as: work overload, burnout, desires of giving up their jobs, high levels of cortisol, among other alterations. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals, who work in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units, due to the specificity of their job, are liable to develop occupational stress, and consequently burnout. These results suggest the need for further research with the objective of developing preventive measures and intervention models.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2007;19(1):53-59
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2007000100007
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The hospital environment, especially in Intensive Care Units (ICU), due to the complexity of the assistance, as well as the physical structure, the noise, the equipments and people's movement, is considered as stress generator for the patients. The aim of this study was to identify and stratify the stressful factors for patients at an ICU, in the perspective of the own patient, relatives and health care professionals. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out between June and November 2004 in a general ICU of a private hospital. The sample was composed of three groups: patients (G1), relatives (G2) and a member of the ICU health care team responsible for the included patient (G3). In order to identify and stratify the stressful factors, we used the Intensive Care Unit Environmental Stressor Scale (ICUESS). For each individual, a total stress score (TSS) was calculated from the sum of all the answers of the scale. RESULTS: Thirty individuals were included in each group. The mean age of the three groups was: 57.30 ± 17.61 years for G1; 41.43 ± 12.19 for G2; and 40.82 ± 20.20 for G3. The mean TSS was 62.63 ± 14.01 for the patients; 91.10 ± 30.91 for the relatives; and 99.30 ± 21.60 for the health care professionals. The patients' mean TSS was statistically lower than mean TSS of relatives and professionals (p < 0.01). The most stressful factors for the patients were: seeing family and friends only a few minutes a day; having tubes in their nose and/or mouth; and having no control on oneself. CONCLUSIONS: The perception of the main stressful factors was different among the three groups. The identification of these factors is important to the implementation of changes that can make the humanization of the ICU environment easier.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2007;19(1):53-59
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2007000100007
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The hospital environment, especially in Intensive Care Units (ICU), due to the complexity of the assistance, as well as the physical structure, the noise, the equipments and people's movement, is considered as stress generator for the patients. The aim of this study was to identify and stratify the stressful factors for patients at an ICU, in the perspective of the own patient, relatives and health care professionals. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out between June and November 2004 in a general ICU of a private hospital. The sample was composed of three groups: patients (G1), relatives (G2) and a member of the ICU health care team responsible for the included patient (G3). In order to identify and stratify the stressful factors, we used the Intensive Care Unit Environmental Stressor Scale (ICUESS). For each individual, a total stress score (TSS) was calculated from the sum of all the answers of the scale. RESULTS: Thirty individuals were included in each group. The mean age of the three groups was: 57.30 ± 17.61 years for G1; 41.43 ± 12.19 for G2; and 40.82 ± 20.20 for G3. The mean TSS was 62.63 ± 14.01 for the patients; 91.10 ± 30.91 for the relatives; and 99.30 ± 21.60 for the health care professionals. The patients' mean TSS was statistically lower than mean TSS of relatives and professionals (p < 0.01). The most stressful factors for the patients were: seeing family and friends only a few minutes a day; having tubes in their nose and/or mouth; and having no control on oneself. CONCLUSIONS: The perception of the main stressful factors was different among the three groups. The identification of these factors is important to the implementation of changes that can make the humanization of the ICU environment easier.
Search
Search in:
Case reports (56) Child (53) Coronavirus infections (34) COVID-19 (46) Critical care (115) Critical illness (54) Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (26) Infant, newborn (27) Intensive care (72) Intensive care units (256) Intensive care units, pediatric (31) mechanical ventilation (38) Mortality (76) Physical therapy modalities (28) Prognosis (61) Respiration, artificial (119) Respiratory insufficiency (26) risk factors (34) SARS-CoV-2 (28) Sepsis (98)