PURPOSE: To assess family satisfaction in the intensive care unit (ICU) and areas for improvement using quantitative and qualitative analyses. METHODS: Prospective cohort study performed in four (mixed surgical, neurological, and cardiological) intensive care units of a university hospital in Germany, using a translated and validated version of the Family Satisfaction in the ICU (FS-ICU) questionnaire, with questions answerable on a rating scale and three open-ended questions about strengths and weaknesses. Quantitative analysis was performed to identify items with low performance and high importance. For qualitative analysis, comments were coded and analyzed to identify important themes. Patient-related data were obtained from an electronic patient data management system. RESULTS: Participants were 215 family members visiting adult intensive care patients with length of stay over 48 h. Response rate was 28 %. Respondents were highly satisfied; summary scores were 78.3 ± 14.3 [mean ± standard deviation (SD)] on a scale of 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent). Regression analysis failed to identify association with patient- or family-related factors. The following themes for possible improvement emerged from both quantitative and qualitative analyses: patient agitation-consistency, clarity and completeness of information-emotional support-respect and compassion towards families. Families were also dissatisfied with the waiting room, ICU atmosphere, and amenities for visiting relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Families report high satisfaction with intensive care. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement, in particular regarding how ICU staff communicate with families and provide emotional support.
PURPOSE: To assess family satisfaction in the intensive care unit (ICU) and areas for improvement using quantitative and qualitative analyses. METHODS: Prospective cohort study performed in four (mixed surgical, neurological, and cardiological) intensive care units of a university hospital in Germany, using a translated and validated version of the Family Satisfaction in the ICU (FS-ICU) questionnaire, with questions answerable on a rating scale and three open-ended questions about strengths and weaknesses. Quantitative analysis was performed to identify items with low performance and high importance. For qualitative analysis, comments were coded and analyzed to identify important themes. Patient-related data were obtained from an electronic patient data management system. RESULTS:Participants were 215 family members visiting adult intensive care patients with length of stay over 48 h. Response rate was 28 %. Respondents were highly satisfied; summary scores were 78.3 ± 14.3 [mean ± standard deviation (SD)] on a scale of 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent). Regression analysis failed to identify association with patient- or family-related factors. The following themes for possible improvement emerged from both quantitative and qualitative analyses: patientagitation-consistency, clarity and completeness of information-emotional support-respect and compassion towards families. Families were also dissatisfied with the waiting room, ICU atmosphere, and amenities for visiting relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Families report high satisfaction with intensive care. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement, in particular regarding how ICU staff communicate with families and provide emotional support.
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Paul S Ciechanowski; Lois Downey; Julia Gold; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Sarah E Shannon; Patsy D Treece; Jessica P Young; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sabina Hunziker; Wendy McHugh; Barbara Sarnoff-Lee; Sabrina Cannistraro; Long Ngo; Edward Marcantonio; Michael D Howell Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jennifer L McAdam; Kathleen A Dracup; Douglas B White; Dorothy K Fontaine; Kathleen A Puntillo Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Daren K Heyland; Graeme M Rocker; Peter M Dodek; Demetrios J Kutsogiannis; Elsie Konopad; Deborah J Cook; Sharon Peters; Joan E Tranmer; Christopher J O'Callaghan Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Elie Azoulay; Giuseppe Citerio; Jan Bakker; Matteo Bassetti; Dominique Benoit; Maurizio Cecconi; J Randall Curtis; Glenn Hernandez; Margaret Herridge; Samir Jaber; Michael Joannidis; Laurent Papazian; Mark Peters; Pierre Singer; Martin Smith; Marcio Soares; Antoni Torres; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jean-François Timsit Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ann C Long; Erin K Kross; Ruth A Engelberg; Lois Downey; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Anthony L Back; J Randall Curtis Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Irene P Jongerden; Arjen J Slooter; Linda M Peelen; Hester Wessels; Colette M Ram; Jozef Kesecioglu; Margriet M Schneider; Diederik van Dijk Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Avelino C Verceles; Douglas S Corwin; Majid Afshar; Eliot B Friedman; Michael T McCurdy; Carl Shanholtz; Karen Oakjones; Marc T Zubrow; Jennifer Titus; Giora Netzer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ramesh Venkataraman; Lakshmi Ranganathan; V Rajnibala; Babu K Abraham; Senthilkumar Rajagopalan; Nagarajan Ramakrishnan Journal: Indian J Crit Care Med Date: 2015-09