Strategies for Enhancing Family Participation in Research in the ICU: Findings From a Qualitative Study

Research participation in palliative medicine-benefits and barriers for patients and families: rapid review and thematic synthesis

BACKGROUND

Research is essential for gathering evidence to inform best practice and clinical decision making, for developing and testing new treatments and services in palliative and end-of-life care (PEoLC). The participation of patients, carers and family members is essential, however, personal and ethical concerns are often cited by professionals as barriers to recruitment. There is evidence that patients and family members can benefit from participation in PEoLC research.

AIM

To synthesise the evidence regarding patients', family members' and carers' experiences of participating in PEoLC research. To identify recommendations for enhancing the experience of participants.

DESIGN

A qualitative rapid review and thematic synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycINFO and PubMed were searched from 2010 to 2020. Studies reporting patients', family members' or carers' experiences of participating in PEoLC research were included.

RESULTS

4 studies were included and 7 themes identified relating to the benefits of, and barriers to, participation in PEoLC research. Both altruistic and personal benefits of participation were reported. Barriers (negative aspects) to participation included feeling overwhelmed, practical issues, reminders of being a patient, not seeing the research as relevant to them and unmet needs.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of benefits (positive aspects) surround participation in PEoLC research. However, several barriers (negative aspects) can prevent or discourage participation. This review has identified recommendations for research teams to enhance the experience, and number of people who those participating in research in this field.

Clinical research for life-threatening illnesses requiring emergency hospitalisation: a critical interpretive synthesis of qualitative data related to the experience of participants and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Research into life-threatening illnesses which require emergency hospitalisation is essential. This group of patients is unique in that they are experiencing an unfolding emergency when they are approached, enrolled, and followed up in a research study. We aimed to synthesise qualitative data from trial participants and surrogate decision-makers to deepen our understanding and inform the design and conduct of future clinical trials for life-threatening illnesses.

METHODS

We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis of qualitative data from trial participants and surrogate decision-makers related to the experience of participating in a clinical research study when suffering from a life-threatening illness. A scoping review informed a systematic review of published data. We searched research databases and reviewed papers for inclusion. Primary data and interpretations of data were extracted from each paper. Data were analysed using reciprocal translational analysis, refutational synthesis, and lines of argument synthesis to develop a synthetic construct.

RESULTS

Twenty-two papers were included. Most individuals had no previous knowledge or experience with clinical research. Individuals making decisions were directly experiencing or witness to an unfolding emergency which came with a myriad of physical and psychological symptoms. It was difficult to differentiate clinical research and routine care, and understanding of core concepts around research, particularly randomisation and equipoise, was limited. We found that this led to an underestimation of risk, an overestimation of benefit, and an expectation of being allocated to the intervention arm. The decision-making process was heavily influenced by trust in the research team. Individuals suggested that abbreviated information, presented in different ways and continuously throughout the research process, would have increased knowledge and satisfaction with the research process.

CONCLUSION

Individuals suffering from a life-threatening illness who are being invited to participate in clinical research need to be managed in a way that adapts to the severity of their illness and there is a need to tailor research processes, including informed consent, accordingly. We provide suggestions for further research and implementation work around research participation for individuals suffering from a life-threatening illness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020207296.

Facilitating communication for critically ill patients and their family members: Study protocol for two randomized trials implemented in the U.S. and France

BACKGROUND

Critically-ill patients and their families suffer a high burden of psychological symptoms due, in part, to many transitions among clinicians and settings during and after critical illness, resulting in fragmented care. Communication facilitators may help.

DESIGN AND INTERVENTION

We are conducting two cluster-randomized trials, one in the U.S. and one in France, with the goal of evaluating a nurse facilitator trained to support, model, and teach communication strategies enabling patients and families to secure care consistent with patients' goals, beginning in ICU and continuing for 3 months.

PARTICIPANTS

We will randomize 376 critically-ill patients in the US and 400 in France to intervention or usual care. Eligible patients have a risk of hospital mortality of greater than15% or a chronic illness with a median survival of approximately 2 years or less.

OUTCOMES

We assess effectiveness with patient- and family-centered outcomes, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress, as well as assessments of goal-concordant care, at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-randomization. The primary outcome is family symptoms of depression over 6 months. We also evaluate whether the intervention improves value by reducing utilization while improving outcomes. Finally, we use mixed methods to explore implementation factors associated with implementation outcomes (acceptability, fidelity, acceptability, penetration) to inform dissemination. Conducting the trial in U.S. and France will provide insights into differences and similarities between countries.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the design of two randomized trials of a communication facilitator for improving outcomes for critically ill patients and their families in two countries.

Social representations of comfort for patients' family members in palliative care in intensive care

OBJECTIVE

To know the social representations of comfort for patients' family members in palliative care in intensive care.

METHOD

Descriptive, qualitative study, theoretical framework adopted was Social Representations. 30 family members of patients admitted to an intensive care unit in palliative care participated. Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews, organized and analyzed using the Collective Subject Discourse technique.

RESULTS

Pointed out as central ideas, positive and negative feelings of family members, communication and interaction with the team, ICU as excellence and palliative care as a measure of comfort for the patient and the family.

CONCLUSION

The social representations about the comfort of family members of hospitalized patients in an intensive care unit in palliative care are identified by the family members' feelings during the visit, communication, and the humanized care applied by nursing professionals in the patients in palliative care.

Patients, family members and providers perceive family-administered delirium detection tools in the adult ICU as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping: a qualitative focus group study

PURPOSE

While studies report on perceptions of family participation in delirium prevention, little is known about the use of family-administered delirium detection tools in the care of critically ill patients. This study sought the perspectives of patients, their family members, and healthcare providers on the use of family-administered delirium detection tools to detect delirium in critically ill patients and barriers and facilitators to using family-administered delirium detection tools in patient care.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, critical care providers (five physicians, six registered nurses) and participants from the Family ICU Delirium Detection Study (seven past patients and family members) took part in four focus groups at one hospital in Calgary, Alberta.

RESULTS

Key themes identified following thematic analysis from 18 participants included: 1) perceptions of acceptability of family-administered delirium detection (e.g., family feels valued, intensive care unit (ICU) care team may not use a family member's results, intensification of work load), 2) considerations regarding feasibility (e.g., insufficient knowledge, healthcare team buy-in), and 3) overarching strategies to support implementation into routine patient care (e.g., value of family-administered delirium detection for patients and families is well understood in the clinical context, regular communication between the family and ICU providers, an electronic version of the tool).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients, family members and healthcare providers who participated in the focus groups perceived family participation in delirium detection and the use of family-administered delirium detection tools at the bedside as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03379129); registered 15 December 2017.

Feasibility of an Intervention Study to Support Families When Their Loved One Has Life-sustaining Therapy Withdrawn

This investigation addressed family member perceptions of preparation for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit. These families are at a high risk for psychosocial and physical sequelae. The quantitative results of this mixed methods study are reported. A control group received usual care and an educational booklet component of the intervention. The experimental group received the above plus exposure to comfort cart items and additional psychological support. Twenty-eight family members enrolled over a 13-month period. Sixty-one percent (10 intervention, 7 control) completed the follow-up. Fourteen family members (82%) recalled the booklet. Some family members reported moderate to severe depression (12.5%), anxiety (12.5%), and stress (12.6%). Satisfaction with care (83.7%-85.2%) and family member well-being (44.1) were within the norm. Short Form-36 physical component score was higher than the norm, and the mental component score was lower than the norm. This study demonstrated feasibility and acceptability of the interventions and follow-up questionnaires when families make the difficult decision to withdraw treatment. Strategies are suggested to strengthen statistical power.

Family ENgagement in Intensive Care Environments (FENICE): A quasi-experimental study protocol

Even if health care professionals should take into account the active involvement of families in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), little research that investigates family member’s contributions to care and includes its outcomes on both the family itself and the patient care, is available. The aim of this research project is to assess the effects of a family engagement program on family members’ satisfaction and on patients’ well-being and quality of life. A quasiexperimental study with two non-randomized groups (94 per each group) will be performed in two general ICUs of an Academic Italian Hospital. The intervention will be carried out in a single ICU and it consists of family members’ involvement in the care of their loved ones by means of bed physical exercises and simple care tasks. Participants will be evaluated through manifold outcomes: family satisfaction, assessed with the FS-ICU tool within 48 hours after ICU discharge; patients’ sense of well-being, measured with a visual analogue scale within 30 minutes after the time period of a visit; and the quality of life, investigated with the SF- 12 questionnaire within the first 48 hours after admission to ICU, at three and six months after ICU discharge by telephone. From July 2020, 188 subjects are going to be enrolled throughout the year. The latest data will be collected in December 2021 to allow the completion of the follow-ups of all participants. First, this study constitutes a significant step in a research agenda aimed at deepening the nursing sensitive outcomes in ICUs and the quality of hospital care. Secondly, the results of this study might have the potential to provide a better understanding of how families may modify patients’ outcomes and whether family members would benefit from an involvement program.

Barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies

Background

Clinical research in severely ill or injured patients is required to improve healthcare but may be challenging to perform in practice. The aim of this study was to analyse barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies.

Methods

Data from critically ill patients considered for inclusion in an observational study of venous thromboembolism in Norway were analysed. This included quantitative and qualitative information from the screening log, consent forms and research notes.

Results

Among 279 eligible critically ill patients, 204 (73%) were omitted from the study due to challenges and barriers in the inclusion process. Reasons for omission were categorised as practical in 133 (65%), medical in 31 (15%), and legal or ethical in 40 (20%) of the patients. Among 70 included patients, 29 (41%) consents were from patients and 41 (59%) from their next of kin. Several challenges were described herein; these included whether patients were competent to give consent, and which next of kin that should represent the patient. Furthermore, some included patients were unable to recall what they have consented, and some appeared unable to separate research from treatment.

Conclusions

Barriers and challenges in the inclusion process led to the omission of near three out of four eligible patients. This analysis provided information about where the problem resides and may be solved. The majority of challenges among included patients were related to issues of autonomy and validity of consent.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03405766).

Developing an intervention around referral and admissions to intensive care: a mixed-methods study

Background

Intensive care treatment can be life-saving, but it is invasive and distressing for patients receiving it and it is not always successful. Deciding whether or not a patient will benefit from intensive care is a difficult clinical and ethical challenge.

Objectives

To explore the decision-making process for referral and admission to the intensive care unit and to develop and test an intervention to improve it.

Methods

A mixed-methods study comprising (1) two systematic reviews investigating the factors associated with decisions to admit patients to the intensive care unit and the experiences of clinicians, patients and families; (2) observation of decisions and interviews with intensive care unit doctors, referring doctors, and patients and families in six NHS trusts in the Midlands, UK; (3) a choice experiment survey distributed to UK intensive care unit consultants and critical care outreach nurses, eliciting their preferences for factors used in decision-making for intensive care unit admission; (4) development of a decision-support intervention informed by the previous work streams, including an ethical framework for decision-making and supporting referral and decision-support forms and patient and family information leaflets. Implementation feasibility was tested in three NHS trusts; (5) development and testing of a tool to evaluate the ethical quality of decision-making related to intensive care unit admission, based on the assessment of patient records. The tool was tested for inter-rater and intersite reliability in 120 patient records.

Results

Influences on decision-making identified in the systematic review and ethnographic study included age, presence of chronic illness, functional status, presence of a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order, referring specialty, referrer seniority and intensive care unit bed availability. Intensive care unit doctors used a gestalt assessment of the patient when making decisions. The choice experiment showed that age was the most important factor in consultants’ and critical care outreach nurses’ preferences for admission. The ethnographic study illuminated the complexity of the decision-making process, and the importance of interprofessional relationships and good communication between teams and with patients and families. Doctors found it difficult to articulate and balance the benefits and burdens of intensive care unit treatment for a patient. There was low uptake of the decision-support intervention, although doctors who used it noted that it improved articulation of reasons for decisions and communication with patients.

Limitations

Limitations existed in each of the component studies; for example, we had difficulty recruiting patients and families in our qualitative work. However, the project benefited from a mixed-method approach that mitigated the potential limitations of the component studies.

Conclusions

Decision-making surrounding referral and admission to the intensive care unit is complex. This study has provided evidence and resources to help clinicians and organisations aiming to improve the decision-making for and, ultimately, the care of critically ill patients.

Future work

Further research is needed into decision-making practices, particularly in how best to engage with patients and families during the decision process. The development and evaluation of training for clinicians involved in these decisions should be a priority for future work.

Study registration

The systematic reviews of this study are registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039054, CRD42015019711 and CRD42015019714.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit.