İntensive Care, Nursing, Reiki
Conditions
Keywords
Reiki, Critical care, İntensive care, Nursing care
Brief summary
Patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) support in intensive care units (ICU) may have some negative experiences. The most common of these are problems such as pain, agitation, anxiety, deterioration in comfort, dry mouth, thirst, and inadequacy in communication. Reiki, one of the energy therapies among the non-pharmacological nursing practices that have become widespread in recent years, is one of the healing therapies that contribute to the protection and promotion of well-being, healthy aging, and the treatment of some health deviations and is applied noninvasively with hands. In the literature, there are many studies suggesting that Reiki has positive effects on pain, anxiety and stress response (heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate) in patients with Reiki. It is known that these studies generally consist of health professionals such as cancer, haemodialysis, patients undergoing laparoscopic or endoscopic procedures, haemodialysis patients or nurses. Studies have shown that Reiki is especially effective in cancer patients, preoperative stress, anxiety, postoperative pain and symptom management in chronic diseases. For Reiki application in the intensive care unit, only a few studies conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit were found.
Detailed description
The study will consist of 40 patients hospitalized in intensive care units of Yalova Training and Research Hospital and who are receiving mechanical ventilation treatment. The sample will consist of patients who receive mechanical ventilation support in the intensive care unit, who are over 18 years of age, who are willing to participate in the study, who do not have neurological and psychiatric diagnoses, who are not due to drug/alcohol etc. intoxication, who are not in the terminal period, who are not sedated, who have a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 and above, who are receiving mechanical ventilation support for more than 48 hours, who are hemodynamically stable (not on high dose inotropic support, etc.), and who have a pain score of 3 and above. Since there was no previous study similar to our research in the literature, the sample size was calculated as 26 patients in the experimental group and 26 patients in the control group with a large effect size d= 0.8, 5% margin of error (α) and statistical power (1-β) = 0.80 as recommended. To increase the power of the study and assume that there may be losses from the sample group, 30 patients were planned to be included in the study, 30 in the experimental group and 30 in the control group.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALReiki
Reiki application was performed by a responsible researcher who has a Level 3 (Reiki Master) certificate. To prevent contamination between patients and to provide a suitable environment during the intervention, a curtain-screen system was used in the intensive care unit, and patients were fitted with earplugs to provide a quiet environment during the procedure. During the treatment (total time 30 minutes) the Reiki practitioner gently placed his/her hands on or above the patient's head and eyes, upper body from neck to pelvic area, arms and legs (standard Reiki hand positions). The application was limited and performed once due to the rapid changes in intubation time, intensive care unit stay and hemodynamic stability.
OTHER(Sham Reiki)
n the placebo (sham Reiki) group, treatments were performed by sham practitioners (not involved in the study) who had no experience with energy work and did not believe in energy therapy. In order to ensure blinding during the sham application, the patients were given the same hand movements as the experimental group for the same duration. In order not to distract the patients during the application, the area was separated with a curtain and screen system and earplugs were used. The sham practitioner gently placed his hands on or above the patient's head and eyes, upper body from the neck to the pelvic area, arms and legs for 30 minutes. The application was simulated in a manner similar to standard Reiki hand positions.
Sponsors
University of Yalova
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE (Caregiver)
Masking description
It will not be possible for the researcher to be blinded due to the Reiki application and data collection forms. Blinding in the study will be performed only at the assignment-randomisation stage. Patients will be assigned to the intervention and control groups by the third person (preferably the nurse in charge of intensive care) who is not involved in the research according to the random numbers table in the database sent by the statistician, in the order of group 1 and group 2, using the blinding method.
Intervention model description
Reiki application was performed by a responsible researcher who has a Level 3 (Reiki Master) certificate. To prevent contamination between patients and to provide a suitable environment during the intervention, a curtain-screen system was used in the intensive care unit, and patients were fitted with earplugs to provide a quiet environment during the procedure. During the treatment (total time 30 minutes) the Reiki practitioner gently placed his/her hands on or above the patient's head and eyes, upper body from neck to pelvic area, arms and legs (standard Reiki hand positions).ion time, intensive care unit stay and hemodynamic stability. Placebo Control Group In the placebo (sham Reiki) group, treatments were performed by sham practitioners (not involved in the study) who had no experience with energy work and did not believe in energy therapy.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. over 18 years of age, 2. not have a neurological and psychiatric diagnosis, 3. are not due to drug/alcohol etc. intoxication, 4. are not in the terminal period, who are not sedated, 5. have a GCS score of 9 and above, who receive mechanical ventilation support for more than 48 hours, 6. haemodynamically stable (not on high dose inotrope support, etc.), 7. have a pain score of 3 and above.
Exclusion criteria
Patients who do not fulfil the inclusion criteria will be excluded. \-
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in pain score measured by the Intensive Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in patients receiving mechanical ventilation support | Baseline and immediately after intervention | Intensive Care Pain Observation Scale (CPOT): This scale was developed to diagnose pain in ICU patients. The scale consists of four subscales expressing behavioural items such as facial expression, body movements, muscle tension and compliance with ventilation for intubated patients or sounds for extubated patients. Three points and above are considered as pain. Each of the sections is evaluated between 0-2 points and The CPOT score ranges from 0-8; higher scores indicate more pain. The scale assesses facial expression, body movements, muscle tension, and compliance with ventilation. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in analgesic requirements | During the 30-minute intervention and 30 minutes post-intervention (total 1 hour) | Analgesic dose or request recorded from ICU records during and up to 1 hour after intervention. |
| Change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure | Baseline and immediately after intervention | Blood pressure (mmHg) measured using standard ICU monitors at baseline and immediately post-intervention. |
| Change in heart rate | Baseline and immediately after intervention | Heart rate (beats per minute) measured using standard ICU monitors at baseline and immediately post-intervention. |
| Change in respiratory rate | Baseline and immediately after intervention | Respiratory rate (breaths per minute) measured using standard ICU monitors at baseline and immediately post-intervention. |
| Change in anxiety score measured by the Face Anxiety Scale (FAS) | Baseline and immediately after intervention | Anxiety level was assessed using the Face Anxiety Scale (FAS), which ranges from 1 (no anxiety) to 5 (severe anxiety) based on five standardized facial expressions. The scale has been validated for use in intensive care patients. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed