Assessment of communicative competence in adult patients with minimum response in intensive care units: A scoping review.

Background Aims Methods & Procedures Main Contribution Conclusions & Implications WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS What is already known on the subject What this paper adds to the existing knowledge What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Few formal instruments exist to assess the communicative competence of patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs). This can limit interventions by health professionals.To map the categories and instruments for assessing the communicative competence of adult patients with minimal response in ICUs.A scoping review was carried out following the Joanna Briggs Institute protocol between February and March 2022 and using the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Scielo, Business Source Complete (via EBSCOhost), Academic Search Complete (via EBSCOhost) and Web of Science databases, in Portuguese, English and Spanish.Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The different communication and pain assessment protocols covered awareness, cognition, sensory capacity, motor capacity, language, speech and literacy.The present review offers a starting point for the construction of a formal assessment instrument to enable clinicians to implement an augmentative or alternative communication system (AACS) for the voluntary, independent and active participation of patients. Patients in ICUs are subject to various forms of treatment and continuous and intensive monitoring, compromising their capacity to communicate and actively participate (e.g., sharing symptoms and making decisions). Although there is some awareness of their disadvantage in such a regard, few protocols of assessment of communicative competence have been adapted to patients with a minimum response. The present review highlights different protocols for the assessment of communication and pain. They include the following categories: awareness, sensory capacity, auditory and visual acuity, positioning and motor capacity, language, speech, and literacy. The review offers a starting point for the construction of a formal assessment instrument encompassing the aforementioned categories, along with duly validated guidelines for its application. Our formal assessment instrument takes into account the need to adapt to different patient profiles. It is hoped that it will provide speech therapists and other health professionals with the information required to implement an AACS in which patients participate actively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]