The Effect of Using Communication Boards on Ease of Communication and Anxiety in Mechanically Ventilated Conscious Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units

Seyede‑Roghayeh Hosseini, Mohammad‑Amin Valizad‑hasanloei, Aram Feizi


Background: Using mechanical ventilation devices has unique advantages for the patient; however, it can also cause various problems. This study aimed to determine the effect of using communication boards on the ease of communication and anxiety in mechanically ventilated conscious patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).

Materials and Methods: In this quasi‑experimental study, 30 conscious patients undergoing mechanical ventilation were enrolled using consecutive sampling method and assigned to experimental (n = 15) and control (n = 15) groups. The control group included patients receiving primary communication methods, whereas the experimental group included patients who used the communication board for communication. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Ease of Communication Scale (ECS) were completed for both groups. Data were analyzed using descriptive‑inferential statistics.

Results: Communication scores of the patients indicated that there was no significant difference between the control and experimental groups before the intervention (z = −1.77; p = 0.070). However, after the intervention, there was a significant difference in communication scores between the two groups (z = −4.69; p = 0.001). The anxiety scale scores showed a significant difference between the control and experimental groups after the intervention, and patients’ anxiety had significantly decreased in the experimental group (z = −2.98; p = 0.003).

Conclusions: The results showed that the use of the communication board is possible in mechanically ventilated conscious patients and may contribute to ease of communication and decrease patients’ anxiety during mechanical ventilation.


Anxiety, communication, intensive care unit, Iran, ventilators

Full Text:



Aarabi A, Tavakol K. Patient’s experiences of mechanical ventilation. IJNMR 2009;14:83‑8.

Nikravan‑Mofrad M, Shiri H. Critical care nursing in ICU, CCU and dialysis. Tehran: Noore‑Danesh; 2008. pp. 115.

Coyer FM, Wheeler MK, Wetzig SM, Couchman BA. Nursing care of the mechanically ventilated patient: What does the evidence say? Part two. ICCN 2007;23:71‑80.

Angus D, Shorr A, White A, Dremsizov T, Schmitz R, Kelley M, et al. Critical care delivery in the United States: Distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations Crit Care Med 2006;34:1016‑24.

Strøm T, Martinussen T, Toft P. A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: A randomised trial. Lancet 2010;375:475‑80.

Laerkner E, Stroem T, Toft P. No‑sedation during mechanical ventilation: Impact on patient’s consciousness, nursing workload and costs. Nurs Crit Care 2016;21:28‑35.

Baumgarten M, Poulsen I. Patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in an ICU: A qualitative metasynthesis. Scand J Caring Sci 2015;29:205‑14.

Karlsson V, Bergbom I, Forsberg A. The lived experiences of adult intensive care patients who were conscious during mechanical ventilation: A phenomenological‑hermeneutic study. ICCN 2012;28:6‑15.

Happ MB, Garrett K, Thomas DD, Tate J, George E, Houze M, et al. Nurse‑patient communication interactions in the intensive care unit. AJCC 2011;20:28‑40.

Khalaila R, Zbidat W, Anwar K, Bayya A, Linton DM, Sviri S. Communication difficulties and psychoemotional distress in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. AJCC 2011;20:470‑9.

Kleinpell RM, Patak L, Wilson‑Stronks A, Costello J, Person C, Henneman EA, et al. Communication in the ICU 2008 [updated 2008; cited]; Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 May 24].

Patak L, Gawlinski A, Fung NI, Doering L, Berg J, Henneman EA. Communication boards in critical care: Patients’ views. Appl Nurs Res 2006;19:182‑90.

Chan‑ui P, Thaniwattananon P, Petpichetchian W. Effects of communication card on received care based on needs and perceived communication frustration in endotracheal intubated patients. Nurs Sci Health 2010;33:1‑11.

Parsa‑Yekta Z, Sharifi‑Neiestanak N, Mehran A, Imani‑Pour M. Quasi experimental research on anxiety and satisfaction of patients undergoing open cardiac surgery having intubation. Hayat 2002;8:5‑12.

Happ MB, Roesch TK, Garrett K. Electronic voice‑output communication aids for temporarily nonspeaking patients in a medical intensive care unit: A feasibility study. Heart Lung 2004;33:92‑101.

Montazeri A, Vahdaninia M, Ebrahimi M, Jarvandi S. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:1‑5.

Rajan R. Development of a communication board to identify needs of patient on mechanical ventilation post coronary artery bypass grafting. cognitive Discourse International Multidisicplinary 2013;1:210‑2.

Samuelson KAM. Unpleasant and pleasant memories of intensive care in adult mechanically ventilated patients–Findings from 250 interviews. ICCN 2011;27:76‑84.

Rodriguez CS, Blischak DM. Communication needs of nonspeaking hospitalized postoperative patients with head and neck cancer. Appl Nurs Res 2010;23:110‑5.

Radtke JV, Baumann BM, Garrett KL, Happ MB. Listening to the voiceless patient: Case reports in assisted communication in the intensive care unit. J Palliat Med 2011;14:791‑5.

Das D. A study to assess the effectiveness of communication pattern among patients on mechanical ventilator in Bombay hospital at Indore in the year 2014‑2015. IJAR 2016;4:1720‑47.

El‑Soussi AH, Elshafey MM, Othman SY, Abd‑Elkader FA. Augmented alternative communication methods in intubated COPD patients: Does it make difference. Egyptian J Chest Dis Tuberc 2015;64:21‑8.

Lazarus R, Cohen JB. Environmental Stress. Human Behavior and Environment. New York: Springer US; 1977. pp 89‑127.

Happ MB, Garrett KL, Tate JA, DiVirgilio D, Houze MP, Demirci JR, et al. Effect of a multi‑level intervention on nurse‑patient communication in the intensive care unit: Results of the SPEACS trial. Heart Lung 2014;43:89‑98.


  • There are currently no refbacks.