Sleep in hospitalized pediatric and adult patients - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Sleep is essential for recovery from illness. As a result, researchers have shown a growing interest in the sleep of hospitalized patients. Although many studies have been conducted over the past years, an up to date systematic review of the results is missing. Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to assess sleep quality and quantity of hospitalized patients and sleep disturbing factors. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted within four scientific databases. The search focused on synonyms of 'sleep' and 'hospitalization'. Papers written in English or Dutch from inception to April 25th,2022 were included for hospitalized patients >1 year of age. Papers exclusively reporting about patients receiving palliative, obstetric or psychiatric care were excluded, as well as patients in rehabilitation and intensive care settings, and long-term hospitalized geriatric patients. This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Out of 542 full text studies assessed for eligibility, 203 were included, describing sleep quality and/or quantity of 17,964 patients. The median sample size of the studies was 51 patients (IQR 67, range 6-1472). An exploratory meta-analysis of the Total Sleep Time showed an average of 7.2 h (95%-CI 4.3, 10.2) in hospitalized children, 5.7 h (95%-CI 4.8, 6.7) in adults and 5.8 h (95%-CI 5.3, 6.4) in older patients (>60y). In addition, a meta-analysis of the Wake After Sleep Onset (WASO) showed a combined high average of 1.8 h (95%-CI 0.7, 2.9). Overall sleep quality was poor, also due to nocturnal awakenings. The most frequently cited external factors for poor sleep were noise and number of patients in the room. Among the variety of internal/disease-related factors, pain and anxiety were most frequently mentioned to be associated with poor sleep. Conclusion: Of all studies, 76% reported poor sleep quality and insufficient sleep duration in hospitalized patients. Children sleep on average 0.7-3.8 h less in the hospital than recommended. Hospitalized adults sleep 1.3-3.2 h less than recommended for healthy people. This underscores the need for interventions to improve sleep during hospitalization to support recovery.

Evaluation of Nonpharmacologic Interventions and Sleep Outcomes in Hospitalized Medical and Surgical Patients: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Inadequate sleep negatively affects patients' physical health, mental well-being, and recovery. Nonpharmacologic interventions are recommended as first-choice treatment. However, studies evaluating the interventions are often of poor quality and show equivocal results. Objective: To assess whether the implementation of nonpharmacologic interventions is associated with improved inpatient night sleep. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a nonrandomized controlled trial, patients were recruited on the acute medical unit and medical and surgical wards of a Dutch academic hospital. All adults who spent exactly 1 full night in the hospital were recruited between September 1, 2019, and May 31, 2020 (control group), received usual care. Patients recruited between September 1, 2020, and May 31, 2021, served as the intervention group. The intervention group received earplugs, an eye mask, and aromatherapy. Nurses received sleep-hygiene training, and in the acute medical unit, the morning medication and vital sign measurement rounds were postponed from the night shift to the day shift. All interventions were developed in collaboration with patients, nurses, and physicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sleep was measured using actigraphy and the Dutch-Flemish Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System sleep disturbance item bank. Other outcomes included patient-reported sleep disturbing factors and the use of sleep-enhancing tools. Results: A total of 374 patients were included (222 control, 152 intervention; median age, 65 [IQR, 52-74] years). Of these, 331 were included in the analysis (195 [59%] men). Most patients (138 [77%] control, 127 [84%] intervention) were in the acute medical unit. The total sleep time was 40 minutes longer in the intervention group (control: median, 6 hours and 5 minutes [IQR, 4 hours and 55 minutes to 7 hours and 4 minutes]; intervention: 6 hours and 45 minutes [IQR, 5 hours and 47 minutes to 7 hours and 39 minutes]; P < .001). This was mainly due to a 30-minute delay in final wake time (median clock-time: control, 6:30 am [IQR, 6:00 am to 7:22 am]; intervention, 7:00 am [IQR, 6:30-7:30 am]; P < .001). Sleep quality did not differ significantly between groups. For both groups, the main sleep-disturbing factors were noises, pain, toilet visits, and being awakened by hospital staff. Sleep masks (23 of 147 [16%]) and earplugs (17 of 147 [12%]) were used most. Nightly vital sign checks decreased significantly (control: 54%; intervention: 11%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that sleep of hospitalized patients may be significantly improved with nonpharmacologic interventions. Postponement of morning vital sign checks and medication administration rounds from the night to the day shift may be a useful way to achieve this. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Registry Identifier: NL7995.

Patient-nurse agreement on inpatient sleep and sleep disturbing factors.

Background: Sleep is vital for recovery during hospital stay. Many sleep-promoting interventions have been investigated in the past. Nurses seem to overestimate their patients sleep and their perspective is needed for these interventions to be successfully implemented. Objectives: To assess the patient's and nurse's agreement on the patient's sleep and factors disturbing sleep. Methods: The instruments used included 1) five Richard-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) items plus a rating of nighttime noise and 2) the Consensus Sleep Diary (CSD). The mean of the five RCSQ items comprised a total score, which reflects sleep quality. Once a week, unannounced, nurses and patients were asked to fill in questionnaires concerning last night's sleep. Neither nurses nor patients knew the others' ratings. Patient-nurse agreement was evaluated by using median differences and Bland-Altman plots. Reliability was evaluated by using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Fifty-five paired patient-nurse assessments have been completed. For all RCSQ subitems, nurses' scores were higher (indicating "better" sleep) than patients' scores, with a significantly higher rating for sleep depth (median [IQR], 70 [40] vs 50 [40], P = .012). The Bland-Altman plots for the RSCQ Total Score (r = 0.0593, P = .008) revealed a significant amount of variation (bias). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) indicated poor reliability for all 7 measures (range -0.278 - 0.435). Nurses were relatively overestimating their own role in causing sleep disturbances and underestimating patient-related factors. Conclusions: Nurses tend to overestimate patients' sleep quality as well as their own role in causing sleep disturbances.

Using machine learning to predict blood culture outcomes in the emergency department: a single-centre, retrospective, observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop predictive models for blood culture (BC) outcomes in an emergency department (ED) setting. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: ED of a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands between 1 September 2018 and 24 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients from whom BCs were collected in the ED. Data of demographic information, vital signs, administered medications in the ED and laboratory and radiology results were extracted from the electronic health record, if available at the end of the ED visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the performance of two models (logistic regression and gradient boosted trees) to predict bacteraemia in ED patients, defined as at least one true positive BC collected at the ED. RESULTS: In 4885 out of 51 399 ED visits (9.5%), BCs were collected. In 598/4885 (12.2%) visits, at least one of the BCs was true positive. Both a gradient boosted tree model and a logistic regression model showed good performance in predicting BC results with area under curve of the receiver operating characteristics of 0.77 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82) in the test sets, respectively. In the gradient boosted tree model, the optimal threshold would predict 69% of BCs in the test set to be negative, with a negative predictive value of over 94%. CONCLUSIONS: Both models can accurately identify patients with low risk of bacteraemia at the ED in this single-centre setting and may be useful to reduce unnecessary BCs and associated healthcare costs. Further studies are necessary for validation and to investigate the potential clinical benefits and possible risks after implementation.

Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Were Five Times More Likely to Suffer From Total Sleep Deprivation Compared to Non-COVID-19 Patients; an Observational Comparative Study.

Objectives: Sleeping disorders are a common complaint in patients who suffer from an acute COVID-19 infection. Nonetheless, little is known about the severity of sleep disturbances in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and whether these are caused by disease related symptoms, hospitalization, or the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the quality and quantity of sleep in hospitalized patients with and without COVID-19, and to determine the main reasons for sleep disruption. Methods: This was an observational comparative study conducted between October 1, 2020 and February 1, 2021 at the pulmonary ward of an academic hospital in the Netherlands. This ward contained both COVID-19-positive and -negative tested patients. The sleep quality was assessed using the PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance Short Form and sleep quantity using the Consensus Sleep Diary. Patient-reported sleep disturbing factors were summarized. Results: A total of 79 COVID-19 patients (mean age 63.0, male 59.5%) and 50 non-COVID-19 patients (mean age 59.5, male 54.0%) participated in this study. A significantly larger proportion of patients with COVID-19 reported not to have slept at all (19% vs. 4% of non-COVID-19 patients, p = 0.011). The Sleep quality (PROMIS total score) and quantity (Total Sleep Time) did not significantly differ between both groups ((median PROMIS total score COVID-19; 26 [IQR 17-35], non-COVID-19; 23 [IQR 18-29], p = 0.104), (Mean Total Sleep Time COVID-19; 5 h 5 min, non-COVID-19 mean; 5 h 32 min, p = 0.405)). The most frequently reported disturbing factors by COVID-19 patients were; 'dyspnea', 'concerns about the disease', 'anxiety' and 'noises of other patients, medical staff and medical devices'. Conclusion: This study showed that both patients with and without an acute COVID-19 infection experienced poor quality and quantity of sleep at the hospital. Although the mean scores did not significantly differ between groups, total sleep deprivation was reported five times more often by COVID-19 patients. With one in five COVID-19 patients reporting a complete absence of night sleep, poor sleep seems to be a serious problem. Sleep improving interventions should focus on physical and psychological comfort and noise reduction in the hospital environment.

Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design.

BACKGROUND: Truly patient-centred care needs to be aligned with what patients consider important, and is highly desirable in the first 24 h of an acute admission, as many decisions are made during this period. However, there is limited knowledge on what matters most to patients in this phase of their hospital stay. The objective of this study was to identify what mattered most to patients in acute care and to assess the patient perspective as to whether their treating doctors were aware of this. METHODS: This was a large-scale, qualitative, flash mob study, conducted simultaneously in sixty-six hospitals in seven countries, starting November 14th 2018, ending 50 h later. One thousand eight hundred fifty adults in the first 24 h of an acute medical admission were interviewed on what mattered most to them, why this mattered and whether they felt the treating doctor was aware of this. RESULTS: The most reported answers to "what matters most (and why)?" were 'getting better or being in good health' (why: to be with family/friends or pick-up life again), 'getting home' (why: more comfortable at home or to take care of someone) and 'having a diagnosis' (why: to feel less anxious or insecure). Of all patients, 51.9% felt the treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. CONCLUSIONS: The priorities for acutely admitted patients were ostensibly disease- and care-oriented and thus in line with the hospitals' own priorities. However, answers to why these were important were diverse, more personal, and often related to psychological well-being and relations. A large group of patients felt their treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Explicitly asking patients what is important and why, could help healthcare professionals to get to know the person behind the patient, which is essential in delivering patient-centred care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR (Netherlands Trial Register) NTR7538 .

Patient's perspective on improving the quality of acute medical care: determining patient reported outcomes.

RATIONALE: There is an increasing societal demand for quality assurance and transparency of medical care. The American National Academy of Medicine has determined patient centredness as a quality domain for improvement of healthcare. While many of the current quality indicators are disease specific, most emergency department (ED) patients present with undifferentiated complaints. Therefore, there is a need for generic outcome measures. Our objective was to determine relevant patient reported outcomes (PROs) for quality measurement of acute care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews in patients ≥18 years presenting at the ED for internal medicine. Patients with a cognitive impairment or language barrier were excluded. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Thirty patients were interviewed. Patients reported outcomes as relevant in five domains: relief of symptoms, understanding the diagnosis, presence and understanding of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic plan, reassurance and patient experiences. Experiences were often mentioned as relevant to the perceived quality of care and appeared to influence the domain reassurance. CONCLUSION: We determined five domains of relevant PROs in acute care. These domains will be used for developing generic patient reported measures for acute care. The patients' perspective will be incorporated in these measures with the ultimate aim of organising truly patient-centred care at the ED.

Quality and Quantity of Sleep and Factors Associated With Sleep Disturbance in Hospitalized Patients.

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.