Background: Call light systems remain the primary means of hospitalized patients to initiate communication with their health care providers. Although there is vast amounts of literature discussing patient communication with their health care providers, few studies have explored patients' perceptions concerning call light use and communication. The specific aim of this study was to solicit patients' perceptions regarding their call light use and communication with nursing staff.
Methods: Patients invited to this study met the following inclusion criteria: proficient in English, been hospitalized for at least 24 hours, aged ≥21 years, and able to communicate verbally (eg, not intubated). Thirty participants provided written informed consent, were enrolled in the study, and completed interviews.
Results: Using qualitative descriptive methods, five major themes emerged from patients' perceptions (namely; establishing connectivity, participant safety concerns, no separation: health care and the call light device, issues with the current call light, and participants' perceptions of "nurse work"). Multiple minor themes supported these major themes. Data analysis utilized the constant comparative methods of Glaser and Strauss.
Discussion: Findings from this study extend the knowledge of patients' understanding of not only why inconsistencies occur between the call light and their nurses, but also why the call light is more than merely a device to initiate communication; rather, it is a direct conduit to their health care and its delivery.
Keywords: medical technology; nurse work; nurse–patient communication; patient safety; qualitative research; quality of care.
Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Galinato J, Montie M, Shuman C, Patak L, Titler M. Galinato J, et al. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2016 Aug 12;3:2333393616637764. doi: 10.1177/2333393616637764. Epub 2016 Mar 22. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2016. PMID: 28393085 Free PMC article.
Montie M, Galinato JG, Patak L, Titler M. Montie M, et al. Hisp Health Care Int. 2016 Jun;14(2):65-72. doi: 10.1177/1540415316645919. Epub 2016 Apr 29. Hisp Health Care Int. 2016. PMID: 27257219
Galinato J, Montie M, Patak L, Titler M. Galinato J, et al. Comput Inform Nurs. 2015 Aug;33(8):359-67. doi: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000177. Comput Inform Nurs. 2015. PMID: 26176639 Free PMC article.
Llenore E, Ogle KR. Llenore E, et al. Aust Crit Care. 1999 Dec;12(4):142-5. doi: 10.1016/s1036-7314(99)70599-0. Aust Crit Care. 1999. PMID: 11271028 Review.
Minen MT, Anglin C, Boubour A, Squires A, Herrmann L. Minen MT, et al. Headache. 2018 Jan;58(1):22-44. doi: 10.1111/head.13212. Epub 2017 Nov 21. Headache. 2018. PMID: 29159874 Review.
Leong EL, Chew CC, Ang JY, Lojikip SL, Devesahayam PR, Foong KW. Leong EL, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jun 13;23(1):627. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09660-9. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023. PMID: 37312146 Free PMC article.
Cai H, Fullam F, MacAllister L, Fogg LF, Canar J, Press I, Weissman C, Velasquez O. Cai H, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 16;18(18):9747. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18189747. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. PMID: 34574672 Free PMC article.
Shuman C, Montie M, Galinato J, Patak L, Titler M. Shuman C, et al. J Nurs Adm. 2017 Dec;47(12):589-591. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000549. J Nurs Adm. 2017. PMID: 29135845 Free PMC article.