Case Series: Episodes of Care in an Intensive Care Garden-Does Fresh Air Matter?
Kate Tantam, Susie Wolstenholme, Johnny Scott and 2 others
PMID 42381507WHAT IT FOUND
ICU patients used a garden space for end-of-life care and rehabilitation.
Relatives and staff described it as private, natural and supportive, but the report cannot show fresh air improved outcomes.
Key findings
01Two adult ICU cases used the garden for end-of-life care and rehabilitation.
02Relatives and staff described the garden as less clinical, private and supportive, but the shift could also be challenging.
03The garden was used as a rehabilitation space when infection control limited access to normal rehabilitation equipment.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The report is a case series, not a controlled study, so it cannot show that the garden caused any benefit. The authors state the cases have limited methodological rigour and cannot support wide inference. The end-of-life case relied on relatives and staff feedback, not patient outcome measures. The rehabilitation case had no formal written feedback from staff, patients or relatives. The garden intervention combined fresh air, light, privacy, family contact, rehabilitation, infection-control procedures, and staff presence, so any single component cannot be separated. The authors note confounding by sound, light, privacy, open visiting, and single ICUs.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that fresh air improves ICU outcomes. It is a case series with no control group and limited methodological rigour, and the garden was used with many other supports.