Carrie Hill1, Kathleen A Knafl2, Sheila Judge Santacroce2. 1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. Electronic address: carrieah@email.unc.edu. 2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Abstract
PROBLEM: The Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care's (IPFCC) definition of family-centered care (FCC) includes the following four core concepts: respect and dignity, information sharing, participation, and collaboration. To date, research has focused on the provider experience of FCC in the PICU; little is known about how parents of children hospitalized in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) experience FCC. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were included if they were published between 2006 and 2016, included qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods results, related to care received in a PICU, and included results that were from a parent perspective. SAMPLE: 49 articles from 44 studies were included in this review; 32 used qualitative/mixed methods and 17 used quantitative designs. RESULTS: The concepts of respect and dignity, information sharing, and participation were well represented in the literature, as parents reported having both met and unmet needs in relation to FCC. While not explicitly defined in the IPFCC core concepts, parents frequently reported on the environment of care and its impact on their FCC experience. CONCLUSIONS: As evidenced by this synthesis, parents of critically ill children report both positive and negative FCC experiences relating to the core concepts outlined by the IPFCC. IMPLICATIONS: There is a need for better understanding of how parents perceive their involvement in the care of their critically ill child, additionally; the IPFCC core concepts should be refined to explicitly include the importance of the environment of care.
PROBLEM: The Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care's (IPFCC) definition of family-centered care (FCC) includes the following four core concepts: respect and dignity, information sharing, participation, and collaboration. To date, research has focused on the provider experience of FCC in the PICU; little is known about how parents of children hospitalized in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) experience FCC. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were included if they were published between 2006 and 2016, included qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods results, related to care received in a PICU, and included results that were from a parent perspective. SAMPLE: 49 articles from 44 studies were included in this review; 32 used qualitative/mixed methods and 17 used quantitative designs. RESULTS: The concepts of respect and dignity, information sharing, and participation were well represented in the literature, as parents reported having both met and unmet needs in relation to FCC. While not explicitly defined in the IPFCC core concepts, parents frequently reported on the environment of care and its impact on their FCC experience. CONCLUSIONS: As evidenced by this synthesis, parents of critically ill children report both positive and negative FCC experiences relating to the core concepts outlined by the IPFCC. IMPLICATIONS: There is a need for better understanding of how parents perceive their involvement in the care of their critically ill child, additionally; the IPFCC core concepts should be refined to explicitly include the importance of the environment of care.
Authors: Alisa Khan; Nancy D Spector; Jennifer D Baird; Michele Ashland; Amy J Starmer; Glenn Rosenbluth; Briana M Garcia; Katherine P Litterer; Jayne E Rogers; Anuj K Dalal; Stuart Lipsitz; Catherine S Yoon; Katherine R Zigmont; Amy Guiot; Jennifer K O'Toole; Aarti Patel; Zia Bismilla; Maitreya Coffey; Kate Langrish; Rebecca L Blankenburg; Lauren A Destino; Jennifer L Everhart; Brian P Good; Irene Kocolas; Rajendu Srivastava; Sharon Calaman; Sharon Cray; Nicholas Kuzma; Kheyandra Lewis; E Douglas Thompson; Jennifer H Hepps; Joseph O Lopreiato; Clifton E Yu; Helen Haskell; Elizabeth Kruvand; Dale A Micalizzi; Wilma Alvarado-Little; Benard P Dreyer; H Shonna Yin; Anupama Subramony; Shilpa J Patel; Theodore C Sectish; Daniel C West; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Keng-Yen Huang; Simona C Kwon; Sabrina Cheng; Dimitra Kamboukos; Donna Shelley; Laurie M Brotman; Sue A Kaplan; Ogedegbe Olugbenga; Kimberly Hoagwood Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2018-07-11
Authors: Sagrario Gómez-Cantarino; Inmaculada García-Valdivieso; Eva Moncunill-Martínez; Benito Yáñez-Araque; M Idoia Ugarte Gurrutxaga Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrea J Chow; Michael Pugliese; Laure A Tessier; Pranesh Chakraborty; Ryan Iverson; Doug Coyle; Jonathan B Kronick; Kumanan Wilson; Robin Hayeems; Walla Al-Hertani; Michal Inbar-Feigenberg; Shailly Jain-Ghai; Anne-Marie Laberge; Julian Little; John J Mitchell; Chitra Prasad; Komudi Siriwardena; Rebecca Sparkes; Kathy N Speechley; Sylvia Stockler; Yannis Trakadis; Jagdeep S Walia; Brenda J Wilson; Beth K Potter Journal: Patient Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 3.883