Elie Azoulay1, Jean-Marie Forel2, Isabelle Vinatier3, Romain Truillet4, Anne Renault5, Sandrine Valade6, Samir Jaber6, Jacques Durand-Gasselin7, Carole Schwebel8, Hughes Georges9, Sybille Merceron10, Alain Cariou11, Myriam Moussa2, Sami Hraiech2, Laurent Argaud12, Marc Leone6, J Randall Curtis13, Nancy Kentish-Barnes6, Elisabeth Jouve4, Laurent Papazian2. 1. Medical Intensive Care Unit, APHP, Hôpital Saint-Louis, ECSTRA Team, and Clinical Epidemiology, UMR 1153 (Center of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, CRESS), INSERM, Paris Diderot Sorbonne University, Paris, France. elie.azoulay@aphp.fr. 2. Marseille AP-HM, Marseille Cedex 5, France. 3. Surgical ICUs From Montpellier or Marseille Hospitals, Medical-Surgical ICUs From La Roche sur Yon, La Roche sur Yon, France. 4. Statistical Department of Marseille, AP-HM, Marseille, France. 5. Brest Hospital, Brest, France. 6. Medical Intensive Care Unit, APHP, Hôpital Saint-Louis, ECSTRA Team, and Clinical Epidemiology, UMR 1153 (Center of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, CRESS), INSERM, Paris Diderot Sorbonne University, Paris, France. 7. Toulon Hospital, Toulon, France. 8. Grenoble Hospital, Grenoble, France. 9. Tourcoing Hospital, Tourcoing, France. 10. Versailles Hospital, Le Chesnay, France. 11. Medical Intensive Care Unit, AP-HP, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France. 12. Lyon Hospital, Lyon, France. 13. Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Relatives of intensive care unit (ICU) patients suffer emotional distress that impairs their ability to acquire the information they need from the staff. We sought to evaluate whether providing relatives with a list of important questions was associated with better comprehension on day 5. METHODS: Randomized, parallel-group trial. Relatives of mechanically ventilated patients were included from 14 hospitals belonging to the FAMIREA study group in France. A validated list of 21 questions was handed to the relatives immediately after randomization. The primary endpoint was comprehension on day 5. Secondary endpoints were satisfaction (Critical Care Family Needs Inventory, CCFNI) and symptoms of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). RESULTS:Of 394 randomized relatives, 302 underwent the day-5 assessment of all outcomes. Day-5 family comprehension was adequate in 68 (44.2%) and 75 (50.7%) intervention and control group relatives (P = 0.30), respectively. Over the first five ICU days, median number of family-staff meetings/patient was 6 [3-9], median total meeting time was 72.5 [35-110] min, and relatives asked a median of 20 [8-33] questions including 11 [6-13] from the list, with no between-group difference. Satisfaction and anxiety/depression symptoms were not significantly different between groups. The only variable significantly associated with better day-5 comprehension by multivariable analysis was a higher total number of questions asked before day 5. CONCLUSIONS: Providing relatives with a list of questions did not improve day-5 comprehension, secondary endpoints, or information time. Further research is needed to help families obtain the information they need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02410538.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Relatives of intensive care unit (ICU) patients suffer emotional distress that impairs their ability to acquire the information they need from the staff. We sought to evaluate whether providing relatives with a list of important questions was associated with better comprehension on day 5. METHODS: Randomized, parallel-group trial. Relatives of mechanically ventilated patients were included from 14 hospitals belonging to the FAMIREA study group in France. A validated list of 21 questions was handed to the relatives immediately after randomization. The primary endpoint was comprehension on day 5. Secondary endpoints were satisfaction (Critical Care Family Needs Inventory, CCFNI) and symptoms of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). RESULTS: Of 394 randomized relatives, 302 underwent the day-5 assessment of all outcomes. Day-5 family comprehension was adequate in 68 (44.2%) and 75 (50.7%) intervention and control group relatives (P = 0.30), respectively. Over the first five ICU days, median number of family-staff meetings/patient was 6 [3-9], median total meeting time was 72.5 [35-110] min, and relatives asked a median of 20 [8-33] questions including 11 [6-13] from the list, with no between-group difference. Satisfaction and anxiety/depression symptoms were not significantly different between groups. The only variable significantly associated with better day-5 comprehension by multivariable analysis was a higher total number of questions asked before day 5. CONCLUSIONS: Providing relatives with a list of questions did not improve day-5 comprehension, secondary endpoints, or information time. Further research is needed to help families obtain the information they need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02410538.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anxiety; Burden; Communication; Depression; Intensive care unit; Stress
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Ruth A Engelberg; Marjorie D Wenrich; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Sarah E Shannon; Patsy D Treece; Mark R Tonelli; Donald L Patrick; Lynne S Robins; Barbara B McGrath; Gordon D Rubenfeld Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Gabriel T Bosslet; Thaddeus M Pope; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Bernard Lo; Robert D Truog; Cynda H Rushton; J Randall Curtis; Dee W Ford; Molly Osborne; Cheryl Misak; David H Au; Elie Azoulay; Baruch Brody; Brenda G Fahy; Jesse B Hall; Jozef Kesecioglu; Alexander A Kon; Kathleen O Lindell; Douglas B White Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: F Pochard; E Azoulay; S Chevret; F Lemaire; P Hubert; P Canoui; M Grassin; R Zittoun; J R le Gall; J F Dhainaut; B Schlemmer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Abigail A Howell; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Anne M Turner; J Randall Curtis; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Rebecca E Ryan; Michael Connolly; Natalie K Bradford; Simon Henderson; Anthony Herbert; Lina Schonfeld; Jeanine Young; Josephine I Bothroyd; Amanda Henderson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-07-08
Authors: J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Deborah Ejem; Rachel Wells; Amber E Barnato; Richard A Taylor; Gabrielle B Rocque; Yasemin E Turkman; Matthew Kenny; Nataliya V Ivankova; Marie A Bakitas; Michelle Y Martin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthieu Le Dorze; Sara Martouzet; Etienne Cassiani-Ingoni; France Roussin; Alexandre Mebazaa; Lucas Morin; Nancy Kentish-Barnes Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Gina M Piscitello; Corinna M Fukushima; Anna K Saulitis; Katherine T Tian; Jennifer Hwang; Shreya Gupta; Mark Sheldon Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 2.500