1. The Influence of Environmental Factors on Sleep Quality in Hospitalized Medical Patients
- Author
-
Carlo Merkel, Angelo Gatta, Matteo Turco, Gabriella Mazzotta, Milena Bano, Sara Montagnese, Michela Corrias, Rodolfo Costa, Michele De Rui, Federica Chiaromanni, and Piero Amodio
- Subjects
Pediatrics ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Light ,Sleep quality ,business.industry ,Sleep assessment ,lcsh:RC346-429 ,Hospital ,Neurology ,circadian rhythms ,Internal Medicine ,Physical therapy ,Medicine ,Neurology (clinical) ,Circadian rhythm ,Sleep (system call) ,Noise ,Sleep ,business ,lcsh:Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system ,Daylight saving time ,Neuroscience ,Original Research ,Morning ,Light exposure - Abstract
Introduction: Sleep–wake disturbances are common in hospitalized patients but few studies have assessed them systematically. The aim of the present study was to assess sleep quality in a group of medical inpatients, in relation to environmental factors, and the switch to daylight-saving time. Methods: Between March and April 2013, 118 consecutive inpatients were screened and 99 (76 ± 11 years; hospitalization: 8 ± 7 days) enrolled. They slept in double or quadruple rooms, facing South/South-East, and were qualified as sleeping near/far from the window. They underwent daily sleep assessment by standard questionnaires/diaries. Illuminance was measured by a luxmeter at each patient’s eye-level, four times per day. Noise was measured at the same times by a phonometer. Information was recorded on room lighting, position of the rolling shutters and number/type of extra people in the room. Results: Compliance with sleep-wake assessment was poor, with a range of completion of 2–59%, depending on the questionnaires. Reported sleep quality was sufficient and sleep timing dictated by hospital routine; 33% of the patients reported one/more sleepless nights. Illuminance was generally low, and rolling shutters half-way down for most of the 24 h. Patients who slept near the window were exposed to more light in the morning (i.e., 222 ± 72 vs. 174 ± 85 lux, p
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF