Best practices toolkit for family participation in ICU rounds.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend inviting family members of intensive care unit (ICU) patients to rounds. We aimed to create a toolkit to support family participation in ICU bedside rounds, based upon evidence from research and in collaboration with ICU family member representatives and healthcare providers. METHODS: Ethnographic observations of rounds and interviews and focus groups with family members and ICU healthcare providers were analyzed for key themes, barriers and facilitators of participation, and suggestions. A full day workshop with family representatives and providers (physicians, nurses, social workers, and unit managers) from a diverse range of adult ICUs in Western Canada, including several community ICUs and a majority of large, urban ICUs enabled the collaborative development of key toolkit elements. RESULTS: We have developed an evidence-informed approach to patient-and-family-centered rounds that highlights the importance of six key elements foundational to patient and family centered rounds: Invitation, Orientation, Engagement, Summary, Questions, and Communication Follow-Up. We describe strategies, techniques, and templates to optimize these elements and interactions so that communication is more meaningful, and to facilitate the ability of family members to adopt a meaningful role as contributing members of the care team. CONCLUSION: There is consensus on general strategies for facilitating family participation in rounds and meaningful communication between family and the healthcare team during rounds as an important element of the continuum of communication in the ICU. The incorporation of these elements should be standardized, though tailored to user needs.

Communication with patients' families in the intensive care unit: A point prevalence study.

PURPOSE: We aimed to describe point of care communication encounters with patients' families in centers with open visitation practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional one-day point prevalence study in 14 Canadian adult intensive care units (ICUs) located in 7 academic and 7 community hospitals with open family visitation policies. RESULTS: ICU bedside nurses working on a randomly selected weekday completed a survey reporting all observed communication between providers and patients' families. Family point of care communication encounters were measured for 146 of 159 patients (92%) admitted to the study ICUs. Most patients had family (98%) with the majority observed visiting on the study date (73%). Of patients with family (n = 143), direct in-person communication occurred 71% of the time, either via participation in rounds (23%), family meetings (24%), and/or informal updates (71%). 43% (n = 62) of families had direct communication with a physician or nurse practitioner. Nurses provided the largest portion of informal bedside updates (83%, n = 85) and supplemented family communication with phone calls (22%, n = 31). There was no communication contact for 13% (n = 19) of families. CONCLUSIONS: ICUs adopt multiple ways of communicating with family members of critically ill patients. Significant interactions occur outside of traditional family meetings, in a less formal and more frequent fashion. Our study supports development of tools to support best practices within contemporary communication paradigms to support provider, patients and family needs.

A Multicenter Observational Study of Family Participation in ICU Rounds.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend offering family members of critically ill patients the option to attend interdisciplinary team rounds as a way to improve communication and satisfaction. Uncertainty remains around the benefits and risks. DESIGN: We conducted an observational study to describe family participation in ICU rounds and its association with rounding processes. SETTING: Rounds conducted under the leadership of 33 attending physicians in seven hospitals across three Canadian cities. PATIENTS: Three hundred two individual rounds on 210 unique patients were observed. INTERVENTIONS: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using standardized observational tools. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among the 302 rounds observed, family attended in 68 rounds (23%), were present in ICU but did not attend in 59 rounds (20%), and were absent from the ICU in 175 rounds (58%). The median duration of rounds respectively for these three groups of patients was 20 minutes (interquartile range, 14-26 min), 16 minutes (interquartile range, 13-22 min), and 16 minutes (interquartile range, 10-23 min) (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in prognostic discussions (35% vs 36% vs 36%; p = 0.99) or bedside teaching (35% vs 37% vs 34%; p = 0.88). The quality of rounds was not significantly associated with family attendance in rounds or presence in the ICU (quality score [1 (low) to 10 (high)] median 8 [interquartile range, 7-8] vs 7 [interquartile range, 6-9] vs 7 [interquartile range, 6-9]; p = 0.11). Qualitative analyses suggested that family attendance may influence relationship building, information gathering, patient and family education, team dynamics, future family meetings, workflow, and shared clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest family attendance in ICU rounds is associated with longer duration of rounds, but not the frequency of trainee teaching, discussions of prognosis, or quality of rounds. Family attendance in rounds may enhance communication and complement family conferences.

Outcomes of Ethics Consultations in Adult ICUs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical ethics consultation as a mechanism for supporting patients, family, and staff during ethically challenging situations has become standard of care. Despite this, there is a lack of consensus about the effectiveness of clinical ethics consultation consultation in the ICU. We performed a systematic review of outcomes associated with clinical ethics consultation within adult ICUs. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1984 to May 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened articles, assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled estimates of effect were calculated where possible. We screened 3,970 abstracts and reviewed 325 full-text articles of which 16 met all eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: We examined changes in processes and outcomes as a result of clinical ethics consultation in the ICU. Categories of outcomes included user perception, clinical decision, or conflict resolution and resource utilization. DATA SYNTHESIS: The use of clinical ethics consultation in the ICU was associated with positive user experience (383/435 found clinical ethics consultation helpful), although stress and disagreement with clinical ethics consultation recommendations was greater in a subset (113/431 surrogates and providers). Consensus for a clinical decision was more frequently achieved with clinical ethics consultation (odds ratio, 4.09; 95% CI, 1.01-16.55; p = 0.05). Clinical ethics consultation was associated with lower resource utilization including significantly decreased ICU length of stay (mean difference, -4.65 d; 95% CI, -8.86 to -0.44; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified outcome-based assessment as the predominant measure used to report effectiveness of clinical ethics consultation consultations. In particular, clinical ethics consultation decreased ICU length of stay and increased family and healthcare provider satisfaction. However, using outcome measures as the primary endpoint may not reflect the original intent of the clinical ethics consultation service. Based on our review, we propose a list of process measures that may better capture the key domains of a quality clinical ethics consultation.

Family participation in intensive care unit rounds: Comparing family and provider perspectives.

PURPOSE: To describe and compare intensive care unit (ICU) patient family member and provider experiences, preferences, and perceptions of family participation in ICU rounds. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of ICU family members and providers of patients admitted to 4 medical-surgical ICUs from September 2014 to March 2015. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 63 (62%) family members and 258 (43%) providers. Provider respondents included physicians (9%), nurses (56%), respiratory therapists (24%), and other ICU team members (11%). Although 38% of providers estimated only moderate family member interest in participating in rounds, 97% of family members expressed high interest. Family members and providers reported listening (95% vs 96%; P=.594) and sharing information about the patient (82% vs 82%; P=.995) as appropriate roles for family members during rounds, but differed in their perceptions on asking questions (75% vs 86%; P=.043) and participating in decision making (36% vs 59%; P=.003). Compared with family members, providers were more likely to perceive family participation in rounds to cause family stress (7% vs 22%; P=.020) and confusion (0% vs 28%; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Family members and providers share some perspectives on family participation in ICU rounds although other perspectives are discordant, with implications for communication strategies and collaborative decision making.