Dataset Information

Emotional Experiences and Coping Strategies of Family Members of Critically Ill Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Two out of three family members experience symptoms of posttraumatic stress, depression, or anxiety lasting for months after the ICU stay. Interventions aimed at mitigating these symptoms have been unsuccessful.

Research question

To understand the emotional experiences of family members of critically ill patients and to identify coping strategies used by family members during the ICU stay.

Study design

and Methods: As part of a mixed methods study to understand sources of distress among ICU family members, semistructured interviews were conducted with ICU family members. Family members completed surveys at the time of interview and at 90 days to assess for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress.

Results

Semistructured interviews and baseline surveys were conducted with 40 ICU family members; 78% of participants (n = 31) completed follow-up surveys at 90 days. At the time of interview, 65% of family members had symptoms of depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress. At 90 days, 48% of surveyed family members had symptoms of psychological distress. Three primary emotions were identified among ICU family members: sadness, anger, and fear. A diverse array of coping strategies was used by family members, including problem-solving, information seeking, avoidance/escape, self-reliance, support seeking, and accommodation.

Interpretation

This study emphasizes similarities in emotions but diversity in coping strategies used by family members in the ICU. Understanding the relationship between ICU experiences, emotional responses, and long-term psychological outcomes may guide targeted interventions to improve mental health outcomes of ICU family members.

SUBMITTER: Harlan EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7545490 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePalliative care consultations in intensive care units (ICUs) are increasingly prompted by clinical characteristics associated with mortality or resource utilization. However, it is not known whether these triggers reflect actual palliative care needs.ObjectiveTo compare unmet needs by clinical palliative care trigger status (present vs absent).Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study was conducted in 6 adult medical and surgical ICUs in academic and community hospitals in North Carolina between January 2019 and September 2020. Participants were consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation and their family members.ExposurePresence of any of 9 common clinical palliative care triggers.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST) score (range, 0-130, with higher scores reflecting greater need), which was completed after 3 days of ICU care. Trigger status performance in identifying serious need (NEST score ≥30) was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and C statistics.ResultsSurveys were completed by 257 of 360 family members of patients (71.4% of the potentially eligible patient-family member dyads approached) with a median age of 54.0 years (IQR, 44-62 years); 197 family members (76.7%) were female, and 83 (32.3%) were Black. The median age of patients was 58.0 years (IQR, 46-68 years); 126 patients (49.0%) were female, and 88 (33.5%) were Black. There was no difference in median NEST score between participants with a trigger present (45%) and those with a trigger absent (55%) (21.0; IQR, 12.0-37.0 vs 22.5; IQR, 12.0-39.0; P = .52). Trigger presence was associated with poor sensitivity (45%; 95% CI, 34%-55%), specificity (55%; 95% CI, 48%-63%), positive likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3), negative likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2), and C statistic (0.50; 95% CI, 0.44-0.57).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, clinical palliative care trigger status was not associated with palliative care needs and no better than chance at identifying the most serious needs, which raises questions about an increasingly common clinical practice. Focusing care delivery on directly measured needs may represent a more person-centered alternative.

Project description:BackgroundNo consensus based national standard for interhospital transports of critically ill patients exists in Norway. The local hospitals are responsible for funding, organizing and performing these transports, resulting in potentially different level of care for the critically ill patients depending on local hospital resources and not the level of severity in the patient's condition. The aim of this study was to examine how these transports are executed and to discover challenges during transports and potentials of improvement.MethodsA qualitative study with 20 semi-structured interviews of doctors, nurses and ambulance personnel representing a wide range in experience and formal education, reflecting the different compositions of crews performing interhospital transports was conducted. A systematic text condensation of the interviews was performed to describe personal experiences and values.ResultsFew interviewees reported special adverse events when asked. Instead they chose to describe more general characteristics of the working environment, their own positive emotions or fears and the strengths and weaknesses of the organizational system. The prehospital working environment was described as different from the in-hospital environment. The personnel experienced being on their own during transports, lack of procedures and checklists and often no systematic education or demanded preparedness for participating. The resident doctors described pressure from elderly colleagues to participate in the transports. At the same time, all interviewees reported a self-interest in participating in these transports.ConclusionsSafe interhospital transports of the critically ill patients are challenged by the characteristics of the out of hospital environment. The transports are described as potentially unsafe for both patients and personnel. Systematic education is warranted, highlighting the use of checklists and special educational programs in prehospital critical care medicine. The strong personal interest to participate in these transports may serve as a barrier against changing todays system. To ensure the right level of competence and safety for each unique patient, it is imperative to standardize the interhospital transports on a national level, built on consensus from experienced prehospital personnel.Trial registrationThe trial is approved and registered by the local representative for the Norwegian Data Protection Authority as trial 13-7751.