article · Alexandria Scientific Nursing Journal
Background: Critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units are at a great risk for the developing eye complications as a result of the impairment of normal eye protection mechanisms, such as tear production, blinking, and keeping the eye closed. This is attributed to many risk factors including connecting to a mechanical ventilator, sedation, and decreased level of consciousness. Implementing of protocolized eye care such as nurse-led eye care protocol can have an impact on incidences of eye complications and patient quality of life after discharge from the ICU. Design: A quasi experimental research design was used to conduct this study .Settings: The study was carried out in the General Medical Intensive Care Units at Damanhur Medical National Institute in Damanhur City, Egypt. Subjects: A convenience sampling of 100 newly adults admitted mechanically ventilated patients was included in the study. Subjects were divided into 2 equal groups: 50 patients for control group and 50 for intervention group. Tools: two tools were used. Tool one: “Patient’s Admission Assessment Form ".Tool two: “Eye Complications’ Evaluation Scales ". Results: The study showed that the incidence of overall ECs decreased significantly from 84% in the control group to 46% in the intervention group (p <0.001) after the implementation of the nurse-led eye care protocol. Furthermore, the intervention group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of eye dryness, conjunctival injection, periorbital edema, and eye discharge than the control group (p<0.001). Conclusion: The implementation of nurse-led eye care protocol significantly decreased the incidence and severity of eye dryness, conjunctival injection, periorbital edema, and eye discharge. Recommendations: Critical care nurses should implement the nurse-led eye care protocol for mechanically ventilated patients to prevent ECs after establishing educational programs to increase their knowledge and expertise about the protocol.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.21608/asalexu.2024.376817
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.