Cargando…
Patient and family engagement in patient care and research in Canadian intensive care units: a national survey
PURPOSE: While patient and family engagement may improve clinical care and research, current practices for engagement in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) are unknown. METHODS: We developed and administered a cross-sectional questionnaire to ICU leaders of current engagement practices, facilitato...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9640777/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36344874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-022-02342-w |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: While patient and family engagement may improve clinical care and research, current practices for engagement in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) are unknown. METHODS: We developed and administered a cross-sectional questionnaire to ICU leaders of current engagement practices, facilitators, and barriers to engagement, and whether engagement was a priority, using to an ordinal Likert scale from 1 to 10. RESULTS: The response rate was 53.4% (124/232). Respondents were from 11 provinces and territories, mainly from medical surgical ICUs (76%) and community hospitals (70%). Engagement in patient care included bedside care (84%) and bedside rounds (66%), presence during procedures/crises (65%), and survey completion (77%). Research engagement included ethics committees (36%), protocol review (31%), and knowledge translation (30%). Facilitators of engagement in patient care included family meetings (87%), open visitation policies (81%), and engagement as an institutional priority (74%). Support from departmental (43%) and hospital (33%) leadership was facilitator of research engagement. Time was the main barrier to engagement in any capacity. Engagement was a higher priority in patient care vs research (median [interquartile range], 8 [7–9] vs 3 [1–7]; P < 0.001) and in pediatric vs adult ICUs (10 [9–10] vs 8 [7–9]; P = 0.003). Research engagement was significantly higher in academic vs other ICUs (7 [5–8] vs 2 [1–4]; P < 0.001), and pediatric vs adult ICUs (7 [5–8] vs 3 [1–6]; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Organizational strategies and institutional support were key facilitators of engagement. Engagement in patient care was a higher priority than engagement in research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12630-022-02342-w. |
---|