PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Teams assessing hospital noise against international guidelines regularly find that noise exceeds perceived safe levels in clinical settings. The care of sick people may be inherently noisy but recent efforts to tackle the problem propose a wider scope to identify sources and qualities of noise as well as more precision with noise recording.
We sought to challenge the scientific evidence cited in the four major documents pertaining to hospital noise in the UK to clarify if evidence of harm from noise included in guidelines is available, contemporary and of high quality.
Our team of hearing-health clinicians, acoustic scientists and acoustic engineers have conducted a narrative scoping review focused on critically appraising four of the most cited guidelines against which noise is measured in healthcare settings in the UK.
There is a lack of high-quality evidence for commonly accepted consequences of noise cited in current guidelines.
The current evidence base for noise guidelines in a healthcare setting is largely based on subjective heterogeneous and inconclusive research. Whilst reduced noise is not disputed as potentially beneficial for patient care, further hypothesis-driven research and interventions assessing the benefits or outcomes of any such intervention should be sought to produce high-quality evidence of relevance on the clinical coalface.
We sought to challenge the scientific evidence cited in the four major documents pertaining to hospital noise in the UK to clarify if evidence of harm from noise included in guidelines is available, contemporary and of high quality.
Our team of hearing-health clinicians, acoustic scientists and acoustic engineers have conducted a narrative scoping review focused on critically appraising four of the most cited guidelines against which noise is measured in healthcare settings in the UK.
There is a lack of high-quality evidence for commonly accepted consequences of noise cited in current guidelines.
The current evidence base for noise guidelines in a healthcare setting is largely based on subjective heterogeneous and inconclusive research. Whilst reduced noise is not disputed as potentially beneficial for patient care, further hypothesis-driven research and interventions assessing the benefits or outcomes of any such intervention should be sought to produce high-quality evidence of relevance on the clinical coalface.
摘要：
背景：根据国际准则评估医院噪音的团队经常发现，在临床环境中，噪音超过了感知的安全水平。病人的护理可能本质上是嘈杂的，但是最近解决该问题的努力提出了更广泛的范围来识别噪声源和质量，以及更精确的噪声记录。
目的：我们试图挑战英国与医院噪音有关的四个主要文件中引用的科学证据，以澄清指南中是否有噪音造成伤害的证据。现代和高品质。
方法：我们的听力健康临床医生团队，声学科学家和声学工程师进行了一项叙述性的范围审查，重点是批判性地评估四个引用最多的指南，这些指南是在英国的医疗保健环境中测量噪声的。
结果：当前指南中引用的噪音导致的普遍接受的后果缺乏高质量的证据。
结论：目前针对医疗保健环境中的噪声指南的证据基础主要是基于主观异质性和不确定的研究。虽然降低噪音对患者护理可能有益，但没有争议，应寻求进一步的假设驱动的研究和干预措施,以评估任何此类干预措施的益处或结果,以产生与临床合并面相关的高质量证据.
目的：我们试图挑战英国与医院噪音有关的四个主要文件中引用的科学证据，以澄清指南中是否有噪音造成伤害的证据。现代和高品质。
方法：我们的听力健康临床医生团队，声学科学家和声学工程师进行了一项叙述性的范围审查，重点是批判性地评估四个引用最多的指南，这些指南是在英国的医疗保健环境中测量噪声的。
结果：当前指南中引用的噪音导致的普遍接受的后果缺乏高质量的证据。
结论：目前针对医疗保健环境中的噪声指南的证据基础主要是基于主观异质性和不确定的研究。虽然降低噪音对患者护理可能有益，但没有争议，应寻求进一步的假设驱动的研究和干预措施,以评估任何此类干预措施的益处或结果,以产生与临床合并面相关的高质量证据.
