Let Them In: Family Presence During Intensive Care Unit Procedures

Families have for decades advocated for full access to intensive care units (ICUs) and meaningful partnership with clinicians, resulting in gradual improvements in family access and collaboration with ICU clinicians. Despite such advances, family members in adult ICUs are still commonly asked to leave the patient’s room during invasive bedside procedures, regardless of whether the patient would prefer family to be present. Physicians may be resistant to having family members at the bedside due to concerns about trainee education, medicolegal implications, possible effects on the technical quality of procedures due to distractions, and procedural sterility. Limited evidence from parallel settings does not support these concerns. Family presence during ICU procedures, when the patient and family member both desire it, fulfills the mandates of patient-centered care. We anticipate that such inclusion will increase family engagement, improve patient and family satisfaction, and may, on the basis of studies of open visitation, pediatric ICU experience, and family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, decrease psychological distress in patients and family members. We believe these goals can be achieved without compromising the quality of patient care, increasing provider burden significantly, or increasing risks of litigation. In this article, we weigh current evidence, consider historical objections to family presence at ICU procedures, and report our clinical experience with the practice. An outline for implementing family procedural presence in the ICU is also presented

Peer support in critical care: a systematic review

Objectives: Identifying solutions to improve recovery after critical illness is a pressing problem. We systematically evaluated studies of peer support as a potential intervention to improve recovery in critical care populations and synthesized elements important to peer support model design. Data Sources: A systematic search of Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychINFO, and Excertpa Medica Database was undertaken May 2017. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification number: CRD42017070174. Study Selection: Two independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against study eligibility criteria. Studies were included where 1) patients and families had experienced critical illness and 2) patients and families had participated in a peer support intervention. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and a third independent reviewer adjudicated as necessary. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers assessed study quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines and interventions summarized using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist. Data Synthesis: Two-thousand nine-hundred thirty-two studies were screened. Eight were included, comprising 192 family members and 92 patients including adults (with cardiac surgery, acute myocardial infarction, trauma), pediatrics, and neonates. The most common peer support model of the eight studies was an in-person, facilitated group for families that occurred during the patients’ ICU admission. Peer support reduced psychologic morbidity and improved social support and self-efficacy in two studies; in both cases, peer support was via an individual peer-to-peer model. In the remaining studies, it was difficult to determine the outcomes of peer support as the reporting and quality of studies was low. Conclusions: Peer support appeared to reduce psychologic morbidity and increase social support. The evidence for peer support in critically ill populations is limited. There is a need for well-designed and rigorously reported research into this complex intervention

Enablers and Barriers to Implementing ICU Follow-Up Clinics and Peer Support Groups Following Critical Illness: The Thrive Collaboratives

OBJECTIVES: Data are lacking regarding implementation of novel strategies such as follow-up clinics and peer support groups, to reduce the burden of postintensive care syndrome. We sought to discover enablers that helped hospital-based clinicians establish post-ICU clinics and peer support programs, and identify barriers that challenged them. DESIGN: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data. SETTING: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents. SUBJECTS: Clinicians from 21 sites. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten enablers and nine barriers to implementation of "ICU follow-up clinics" were described. A key enabler to generate support for clinics was providing insight into the human experience of survivorship, to obtain interest from hospital administrators. Significant barriers included patient and family lack of access to clinics and clinic funding. Nine enablers and five barriers to the implementation of "peer support groups" were identified. Key enablers included developing infrastructure to support successful operationalization of this complex intervention, flexibility about when peer support should be offered, belonging to the international learning collaborative. Significant barriers related to limited attendance by patients and families due to challenges in creating awareness, and uncertainty about who might be appropriate to attend and target in advertising. CONCLUSIONS: Several enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups should be taken into account and leveraged to improve ICU recovery. Among the most important enablers are motivated clinician leaders who persist to find a path forward despite obstacles

Key mechanisms by which post-ICU activities can improve in-ICU care: results of the international THRIVE collaboratives

Objective: To identify the key mechanisms that clinicians perceive improve care in the intensive care unit (ICU), as a result of their involvement in post-ICU programs. Methods: Qualitative inquiry via focus groups and interviews with members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s THRIVE collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support). Framework analysis was used to synthesize and interpret the data. Results: Five key mechanisms were identified as drivers of improvement back into the ICU: (1) identifying otherwise unseen targets for ICU quality improvement or education programs—new ideas for quality improvement were generated and greater attention paid to detail in clinical care. (2) Creating a new role for survivors in the ICU—former patients and family members adopted an advocacy or peer volunteer role. (3) Inviting critical care providers to the post-ICU program to educate, sensitize, and motivate them—clinician peers and trainees were invited to attend as a helpful learning strategy to gain insights into post-ICU care requirements. (4) Changing clinician’s own understanding of patient experience—there appeared to be a direct individual benefit from working in post-ICU programs. (5) Improving morale and meaningfulness of ICU work—this was achieved by closing the feedback loop to ICU clinicians regarding patient and family outcomes. Conclusions: The follow-up of patients and families in post-ICU care settings is perceived to improve care within the ICU via five key mechanisms. Further research is required in this novel area