Feasibility of a standardized family participation programme in the intensive care unit: A pilot survey study.
Boukje Dijkstra, Lucia Uit Het Broek, Johannes van der Hoeven and 5 others
PMID 36617388WHAT IT FOUND
Most relatives and ICU staff found a standardized menu of family participation activities feasible and applicable in daily practice.
Relatives appreciated helping with care like reading aloud or applying lotion, while staff felt adequately trained and motivated to support this involvement.
Key findings
01Most ICU healthcare professionals had a neutral or positive attitude towards family participation and felt adequately trained to facilitate it.
02Relatives participated in nearly all possible care activities except washing hair, and most felt they had sufficient knowledge and skills to participate.
03The programme was perceived as easy and clear to apply by the majority of healthcare professionals, with no reported harms.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was very small, particularly for patients (three) and relatives (ten), which limits the generalizability of the findings. Purposive sampling and low response rates among relatives may have introduced selection bias, as participants were likely more positive about family participation. The study assessed feasibility and applicability, not clinical outcomes or effectiveness of the programme on patient or family well-being. Project team members were also healthcare providers, which may have influenced responses due to role conflicts or investment in the programme's success.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Dutch Research Council. The authors declared no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the positive attitudes and feasibility as evidence that the programme improves patient or family outcomes. The study was too small and short to measure effectiveness, and the lack of reported harms does not guarantee safety in all clinical contexts.