Characterizing Citizens' Preferences for Engagement in Patient Care and Research in Adult and Pediatric Intensive Care Units

Humanisation in paediatric intensive care units: A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To identify findings in the scientific literature relevant to the strategic lines proposed by the Humanising Intensive Care Project in the context of paediatric intensive care units.

DESIGN

Narrative review.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, CINHAL, and Cochrane Library. Specific indexing terms and search strategies adapted to each database were designed. The inclusion of publications was based on two criteria: 1) related to the paediatric intensive care unit and 2) addresses at least one of the topics related to the strategic lines of the Humanising Intensive Care Project. Study selection was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal tool.

RESULTS

A total of 100 articles from 19 different countries were included, covering the period between 2019 and 2021. Nineteen different design types were identified. Thirty-two studies were cross-sectional observational studies, while 15 had an experimental approach. The articles were distributed among the seven strategic lines of the Humanising Intensive Care Project.

CONCLUSIONS

Synthesising the knowledge related to humanisation in paediatric intensive care units will allow progress to be made in improving quality in these units. However, there is disparity in the amount of experimental research overall.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

There is a disparity in the available research related to the different strategic lines, and it is necessary to carry out more exhaustive research on topics such as the presence and participation of the family in care or the management of post-paediatric intensive care syndrome.

Patient and family perceptions of a discharge bedside board

Objective

To explore patient and family perspectives of a discharge bedside board for supporting engagement in patient care and discharge planning to inform tool revision.

Methods

This qualitative descriptive study included 45 semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of English-speaking patients (n = 44; mean age 58.5 years) and their family members (n = 5) across seven adult inpatient units at a tertiary acute care hospital in mid-western Canada. Thematic (interviews), content (board, organization procedure document), and framework-guided integrated (all data) analyses were performed.

Results

Four themes were generated from interview data: understanding the board, included essential information to guide care, balancing information on the board, and maintaining a sense of connection. Despite application inconsistencies, documented standard procedures aligned with recommended board (re)orientation, timely patient-friendly content, attention to privacy, and patient-provider engagement strategies.

Conclusion

Findings indicate the tool supported consultation and some involvement level engagement in patient care and discharge. Board information was usually valued, however, perceived procedural gaps in tool education, privacy, and the quality of tool-related communication offer opportunities to strengthen patients' and families' tool experience.

Innovation

Novel application of a continuum engagement framework in the exploration of multiple data sources generated significant insights to guide tool revision.

Frequency of screening and SBT Technique Trial-North American Weaning Collaboration (FAST-NAWC): an update to the protocol and statistical analysis plan

BACKGROUND

This update summarizes key changes made to the protocol for the Frequency of Screening and Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) Technique Trial-North American Weaning Collaborative (FAST-NAWC) trial since the publication of the original protocol. This multicenter, factorial design randomized controlled trial with concealed allocation, will compare the effect of both screening frequency (once vs. at least twice daily) to identify candidates to undergo a SBT and SBT technique [pressure support + positive end-expiratory pressure vs. T-piece] on the time to successful extubation (primary outcome) in 760 critically ill adults who are invasively ventilated for at least 24 h in 20 North American intensive care units.

METHODS/DESIGN

Protocols for the pilot, factorial design trial and the full trial were previously published in J Clin Trials ( https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0870.1000284 ) and Trials (https://doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3641-8). As planned, participants enrolled in the FAST pilot trial will be included in the report of the full FAST-NAWC trial. In response to the onset of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic when approximately two thirds of enrollment was complete, we revised the protocol and consent form to include critically ill invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We also refined the statistical analysis plan (SAP) to reflect inclusion and reporting of participants with and without COVID-19. This update summarizes the changes made and their rationale and provides a refined SAP for the FAST-NAWC trial. These changes have been finalized before completion of trial follow-up and the commencement of data analysis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov NCT02399267.

A randomised controlled trial of a nutrition and a decision support intervention to enable partnerships with families of critically ill patients

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of supporting family members to partner with health professionals on nutrition intakes and decision-making and to evaluate intervention and study feasibility.

BACKGROUND

Family partnerships can improve outcomes for critically ill patients and family members. Interventions that support families to engage with health professionals require evaluation.

DESIGN

A multi-centre, randomised, parallel group superiority Phase II randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

In nine intensive care units (ICUs) across three countries, critically ill patients ≥60 years, or those 55-59 years with advanced chronic diseases and expected ICU length of stay >72 h and their family member were enrolled between 9 May 2017 and 31 March 2020. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to either a decision support or nutrition optimisation family-centred intervention, or usual care. Primary outcomes included protein and energy intake during ICU and hospital stay (nutrition intervention) and family satisfaction (decision support). Study feasibility was assessed as a composite of consent rate, intervention adherence, contamination and physician awareness of intervention assignment.

RESULTS

We randomised 135 patients/family members (consent rate 51.7%). The average rate of randomisation was 0.5 (0.13-1.53) per month. Unavailability (staff/family) was the major contributor to families not being approached for consent. Declined consent was attributed to families feeling overwhelmed (58/126, 46%). Pandemic visitor restrictions contributed to early study cessation. Intervention adherence for the decision support intervention was 76.9%-100.0% and for the nutrition intervention was 44.8%-100.0%. Nutritional adequacy, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision-making and overall family satisfaction with ICU were similar for all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Active partnerships between family members and health professionals are important but can be challenging to achieve in critical care contexts. We were unable to demonstrate the efficacy of either intervention. Feasibility outcomes suggest further refinement of interventions and study protocol may be warranted.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Interventions to promote family partnerships in critical illness are needed but require a greater understanding of the extent to which families want and are able to engage and the activities in which they have most impact.

REPORTING METHOD

This study has been reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and caregivers were engaged in and contributed to the development and subsequent iterations of the two family-centred interventions use in this study.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Trial registration.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, ID: NCT02920086. Registered on 30 September 2016. First patient enrolled on 9 May 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02920086&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.

Patient and family engagement in patient care and research in Canadian intensive care units: a national survey

PURPOSE

While patient and family engagement may improve clinical care and research, current practices for engagement in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) are unknown.

METHODS

We developed and administered a cross-sectional questionnaire to ICU leaders of current engagement practices, facilitators, and barriers to engagement, and whether engagement was a priority, using to an ordinal Likert scale from 1 to 10.

RESULTS

The response rate was 53.4% (124/232). Respondents were from 11 provinces and territories, mainly from medical surgical ICUs (76%) and community hospitals (70%). Engagement in patient care included bedside care (84%) and bedside rounds (66%), presence during procedures/crises (65%), and survey completion (77%). Research engagement included ethics committees (36%), protocol review (31%), and knowledge translation (30%). Facilitators of engagement in patient care included family meetings (87%), open visitation policies (81%), and engagement as an institutional priority (74%). Support from departmental (43%) and hospital (33%) leadership was facilitator of research engagement. Time was the main barrier to engagement in any capacity. Engagement was a higher priority in patient care vs research (median [interquartile range], 8 [7-9] vs 3 [1-7]; P < 0.001) and in pediatric vs adult ICUs (10 [9-10] vs 8 [7-9]; P = 0.003). Research engagement was significantly higher in academic vs other ICUs (7 [5-8] vs 2 [1-4]; P < 0.001), and pediatric vs adult ICUs (7 [5-8] vs 3 [1-6]; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Organizational strategies and institutional support were key facilitators of engagement. Engagement in patient care was a higher priority than engagement in research.

Priorities for paediatric critical care research: a modified Delphi study by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Paediatric Study Group

Objective: Most interventions in paediatric critical care lack high grade evidence. We aimed to identify the key research priorities and key clinical outcome measures pertinent to research in paediatric intensive care patients. Design: Modified three-stage Delphi study combining staged online surveys, followed by a face-to-face discussion and final voting. Setting: Paediatric intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Participants: Medical and nursing staff working in intensive care. Main outcome measurements: Self-reported priorities for research. Results: 193 respondents provided a total of 267 research questions and 234 outcomes. In Stage 3, the top 56 research questions and 50 outcomes were discussed face to face, which allowed the identification of the top 20 research questions with the Hanlon prioritisation score and the top 20 outcomes. Topics centred on the use of intravenous fluids (restrictive v liberal fluids, use of fluid resuscitation bolus, early inotrope use, type of intravenous fluid, and assessment of fluid responsiveness), and patient- and family-centred outcomes (health-related quality of life, liberation) emerged as priorities. While mortality, length of stay, and organ support/organ dysfunction were considered important and the most feasible outcomes, long term quality of life and neurodevelopmental measures were rated highly in terms of their importance. Conclusions: Using a modified Delphi method, this study provides guidance towards prioritisation of research topics in paediatric critical care in Australia and New Zealand, and identifies study outcomes of key relevance to clinicians and experts in the field.