Literature DB >> 33588760

Family satisfaction in the intensive care unit, a cross-sectional study from Norway.

Randi Olsson Haave1, Hilde Hammerud Bakke2, Agneta Schröder3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Becoming critically ill represents not just a great upheaval for the patient in question, but also for the patient's closest family. In recent years, there has been a change in how the quality of the public health service is measured. There is currently a focus on how patients and their families perceive the quality of treatment and care. It can be challenging for patients to evaluate their stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) due to illness and treatment. Earlier studies show that the perceptions of the family and the patient may concur. It is important, therefore, to ascertain the family's level of satisfaction with the ICU stay. The aim of the study was to describe how the family evaluate their satisfaction with the ICU stay. A further aim was to identify which demographic variables were associated with differences in family satisfaction.
METHOD: The study had a cross-sectional design. A sample of 57 family members in two ICUs in Norway completed the questionnaire: Family satisfaction in the intensive care unit 24 (FS-ICU 24). Statistical analysis was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test (U), Kruskal Wallis, Spearman rho and a performance-importance plot.
RESULTS: The results showed that families were very satisfied with a considerable portion of the ICU stay. Families were less satisfied with the information they received and the decision-making processes than with the nursing and care performed during the ICU stay. The results revealed that two demographic variables - relation to the patient and patient survival - significantly affected family satisfaction.
CONCLUSION: Although families were very satisfied with the ICU stay, several areas were identified as having potential for improvement. The results showed that some of the family demographic variables were significant for family satisfaction. The findings are clinically relevant since the results can strengthen intensive care nurses' knowledge when meeting the family of the intensive care patient.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FS-ICU 24; Family; Family satisfaction; Intensive care; Intensive care unit

Year:  2021        PMID: 33588760      PMCID: PMC7885442          DOI: 10.1186/s12873-021-00412-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Emerg Med        ISSN: 1471-227X


  49 in total

1.  Qualitative analysis of an intensive care unit family satisfaction survey.

Authors:  Natalie J Henrich; Peter Dodek; Daren Heyland; Deborah Cook; Graeme Rocker; Demetrios Kutsogiannis; Craig Dale; Robert Fowler; Najib Ayas
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 2.  Questionnaires on Family Satisfaction in the Adult ICU: A Systematic Review Including Psychometric Properties.

Authors:  Janneke M van den Broek; Anja H Brunsveld-Reinders; Aglaia M E E Zedlitz; Armand R J Girbes; Evert de Jonge; M Sesmu Arbous
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 7.598

3.  Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Patient opinion as a cornerstone.

Authors:  M S Holanda Peña; N Marina Talledo; E Ots Ruiz; J M Lanza Gómez; A Ruiz Ruiz; A García Miguelez; V Gómez Marcos; M J Domínguez Artiga; M Á Hernández Hernández; R Wallmann; J Llorca Díaz
Journal:  Med Intensiva       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 2.491

4.  Recall of ICU Stay in Patients Managed With a Sedation Protocol or a Sedation Protocol With Daily Interruption.

Authors:  Lisa Burry; Deborah Cook; Margaret Herridge; John W Devlin; Dean Fergusson; Maureen Meade; Marilyn Steinberg; Yoanna Skrobik; Kendiss Olafson; Karen Burns; Peter Dodek; John Granton; Niall Ferguson; Michael Jacka; Maged Tanios; Robert Fowler; Steven Reynolds; Sean Keenan; Ranjeeta Mallick; Sangeeta Mehta
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  Family satisfaction in the intensive care unit: a quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Schwarzkopf; Susanne Behrend; Helga Skupin; Isabella Westermann; Niels C Riedemann; Rüdiger Pfeifer; Albrecht Günther; Otto W Witte; Konrad Reinhart; Christiane S Hartog
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-02-16       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 6.  Family response to critical illness: postintensive care syndrome-family.

Authors:  Judy E Davidson; Christina Jones; O Joseph Bienvenu
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  Predictors and correlates of dissatisfaction with intensive care.

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

8.  Analgesia and sedation of mechanically ventilated patients - a national survey of clinical practice.

Authors:  H Wøien; A Stubhaug; I T Bjørk
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2011-09-26       Impact factor: 2.105

9.  Family experience with intensive care unit care: association of self-reported family conferences and family satisfaction.

Authors:  Sashikanth Kodali; Rebecca A Stametz; Amanda C Bengier; Deserae N Clarke; Abraham J Layon; Jonathan D Darer
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 3.425

10.  Family members' satisfaction with care and decision-making in intensive care units and post-stay follow-up needs-a cross-sectional survey study.

Authors:  Gro Frivold; Åshild Slettebø; Daren K Heyland; Bjørg Dale
Journal:  Nurs Open       Date:  2017-10-18
View more
  2 in total

1.  Postintensive Care Syndrome-Family Associated With COVID-19 Infection.

Authors:  Kasumi Shirasaki; Toru Hifumi; Shutaro Isokawa; Shinsuke Hashiuchi; Shinobu Tanaka; Yaeko Yanagisawa; Osamu Takahashi; Norio Otani
Journal:  Crit Care Explor       Date:  2022-06-30

2.  Patients' Family Satisfaction in Intensive Care Unit: A Leap Forward.

Authors:  Sunil Kumar Garg
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2022-02
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.