ABSTRACT
Although "respect" and "dignity" are intuitive concepts, little formal work has addressed their systematic application in the ICU setting. After convening a multidisciplinary group of relevant experts, we undertook a review of relevant literature and collaborative discussions focused on the practice of respect in the ICU. We report the output of this process, including a summary of current knowledge, a conceptual framework, and a research program for understanding and improving the practice of respect and dignity in the ICU. We separate our report into findings and proposals. Findings include the following: 1) dignity and respect are interrelated; 2) ICU patients and families are vulnerable to disrespect; 3) violations of respect and dignity appear to be common in the ICU and overlap substantially with dehumanization; 4) disrespect may be associated with both primary and secondary harms; and 5) systemic barriers complicate understanding and the reliable practice of respect in the ICU. Proposals include: 1) initiating and/or expanding a field of research on the practice of respect in the ICU; 2) treating "failures of respect" as analogous to patient safety events and using existing quality and safety mechanisms for improvement; and 3) identifying both benefits and potential unintended consequences of efforts to improve the practice of respect. Respect and dignity are important considerations in the ICU, even as substantial additional research remains to be done.
Subject(s)
Critical Care/psychology , Family/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Intensive Care Units/ethics , Professional-Patient Relations/ethics , Respect , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , Critical Care/ethics , Female , Health Personnel/ethics , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
RATIONALE: The quality of communication with patients and family members in intensive care units (ICUs) is a focus of current interest for clinical care improvement. Electronic communication portals are commonly used in other healthcare settings to improve communication. We do not know whether patients and family members desire such portals in ICUs, and if so, what functionality they should provide. OBJECTIVES: To define interest in and desired elements of an electronic communication portal among current and potential ICU patients and their family members. METHODS: We surveyed, via an Internet panel, 1,050 English-speaking adults residing in the United States with a personal or family history of an ICU admission within 10 years (cohort A) and 1,050 individuals without a history of such admission (cohort B). We also administered a survey instrument in person to 105 family members of patients currently admitted to ICUs at an academic medical center in Boston (cohort C). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respondents, especially current ICU family members, supported an electronic communication portal, including access via an electronic tablet. They wanted at least daily updates, one-paragraph summaries of family meetings including a list of key decisions made, and knowledge of the role and experience of treating clinicians. Overall, they preferred detailed rather than "big picture" information. Respondents were generally comfortable sharing information with their family members. Preferences regarding a communication portal varied significantly by age, sex, ethnicity, and prior experience with ICU hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic communication portals appear welcome in contemporary ICUs. Frequent updates, knowledge about the professional qualifications of clinicians, detailed medical information, and documentation of family meetings are particularly desired.
