Direct Observation of Family Engagement Practice in a Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit.

Jillian Kifell, Douglas Slobod, Krystina B Lewis, Michael Goldfarb
Author Information
  1. Jillian Kifell: Division of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. ORCID
  2. Douglas Slobod: Department of Critical Care Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. ORCID
  3. Krystina B Lewis: School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
  4. Michael Goldfarb: Division of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. ORCID

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe family engagement practices in a cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) and to explore their relationship with patient outcomes. Observations were conducted on 104 patients, with most (n = 61; 58%) having family members present. On average, 1.3 ± 0.6 family members were present per observation period per patient, spending 69% of the observation time at the bedside. The most common forms of family engagement included communication (n = 61; 100%), active family presence (n = 36; 59%), and direct contribution to care (n = 35; 57%). Patients with family present were 3 times less likely to be re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days compared to those without family present (5% vs 16%;  = .05). This study offers valuable insights through direct observations of family engagement practices in a CVICU setting, offering a foundational understanding of family engagement patterns and their associations with patient outcomes. These findings establish a basis for developing targeted interventions, policies, and training programs aimed at enhancing family engagement and improving outcomes for both patients and their families in critical care settings.

Keywords

References

  1. Crit Care Explor. 2022 Nov 07;4(11):e0787 [PMID: 36382337]
  2. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 May 17;11(10):e025859 [PMID: 35446109]
  3. Can J Cardiol. 2020 Jul;36(7):1032-1040 [PMID: 32533931]
  4. Can J Anaesth. 2022 Dec;69(12):1527-1536 [PMID: 36344874]
  5. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2024 Oct 24;7:100251 [PMID: 39555387]
  6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9 [PMID: 18313558]
  7. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb 1;191(3):358-60 [PMID: 25635496]
  8. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2023 Sep;16(9):e010084 [PMID: 37539538]
  9. Crit Care Med. 2017 Oct;45(10):1751-1761 [PMID: 28749855]
  10. BMC Nurs. 2024 Jun 25;23(1):430 [PMID: 38918819]
  11. West J Nurs Res. 2022 Mar;44(3):214-226 [PMID: 34904483]
  12. Crit Care Med. 2018 Sep;46(9):e825-e873 [PMID: 30113379]
  13. Crit Care Explor. 2021 Mar 15;3(3):e0365 [PMID: 33786441]
  14. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Jan 15;193(2):154-62 [PMID: 26378963]
  15. Chest. 2025 Mar;167(3):768-771 [PMID: 39368736]
  16. Crit Care Med. 2017 Jan;45(1):103-128 [PMID: 27984278]
  17. J Crit Care. 2018 Dec;48:251-256 [PMID: 30245366]
  18. Health Expect. 2016 Dec;19(6):1183-1202 [PMID: 27878937]
  19. HERD. 2024 Jan;17(1):84-91 [PMID: 37553816]
  20. Crit Care Med. 2018 Aug;46(8):1255-1262 [PMID: 29742590]
  21. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1):S31-S34 [PMID: 30930717]
  22. Nurs Crit Care. 2022 May;27(3):296-325 [PMID: 33089659]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0familyengagementcarepatientoutcomespresentstudypracticesintensiveunitCVICUpatientsn = 61membersperobservationdirectpurposedescribecardiovascularexplorerelationshipObservationsconducted10458%average13 ± 06periodspending69%timebedsidecommonformsincludedcommunication100%activepresencen = 3659%contributionn = 3557%Patients3timeslesslikelyre-admittedhospitalwithin30dayscomparedwithout5%vs16% = 05offersvaluableinsightsobservationssettingofferingfoundationalunderstandingpatternsassociationsfindingsestablishbasisdevelopingtargetedinterventionspoliciestrainingprogramsaimedenhancingimprovingfamiliescriticalsettingsDirectObservationFamilyEngagementPracticeCardiovascularIntensiveCareUnitcardiologyfamily-centeredexperiencepatient/relationship-centered

Similar Articles

Cited By