Top

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie

Published in:

07-11-2022 | Care | Reports of Original Investigations

Patient and family engagement in patient care and research in Canadian intensive care units: a national survey

Authors: Karen E. A. Burns, MD, FRCPC, MSc, Ellen McDonald, BScN, Sylvie Debigaré, MA, Nasim Zamir, MD, FRCPC, Moises Vasquez, MD, Mikael Piche-Ayotte, BSc, Simon Oczkowski, MD, FRCPC, for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

Published in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie | Issue 12/2022

Abstract

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.

Available only for authorised users

Coulter A, Ellins J. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ 2007; 335: 24–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39246.581169.80CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Street RL Jr, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 74: 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015CrossRefPubMed

Berger Z, Flickinger TE, Pfoh E, Martinez KA, Dy Sm. Promoting engagement by patients and families to reduce adverse events in acute care settings: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23: 548–55. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001769

Frampton SB, Guastello S. Putting patients first: patient-centered care: more than the sum of its parts. Am J Nurs 2010; 110: 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.naj.0000388265.57051.e6CrossRefPubMed

Charmel PA, Frampton SB. Building the business case for patient-centered care. Health Finance Manage 2008; 62: 80–5.

Smith M, Saunders R, Stuckhardt L, McGinnis JM. Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press; 2013.

Prey JE, Woollen J, Wilcox L, et al. Patient engagement in the inpatient setting: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21: 742–50. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002141CrossRefPubMed

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The value of engagement. Available from URL: https://www.pcori.org/engagement/value-engagement (accessed June 2022).

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Patient engagement. Available from URL: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45851.html (accessed June 2022).

10.

Nass P, Levine S, Yancy C. Methods for involving patients in topic generation for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research, an international perspective, 2012. Available from URL: https://www.pcori.org/assets/Methods-for-Involving-Patients-in-Topic-Generation-for-Patient-Centered-Comparative-Effectiveness-Research-An-International-Perspective.pdf (accessed June 2022).

11.

Fiest KM, McIntosh CJ, Demiantschuk D, Leigh JP, Stelfox HT. Translating evidence to patient care through caregivers: a systematic review of caregiver-mediated interventions. BMC Med 2018; 16: 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1097-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Fiest KM, Sept BG, Stelfox HT. Patients as researchers in adult critical care medicine. Fantasy or reality? Ann Am Thorac Soc 2020; 17: 1047–51. https://doi.org/10.1513/annalsats.201911-847ip

13.

Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Investigator-led clinical research consortia: the Canadian critical care trials group. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: S165–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181921079

14.

Burns KE, Duffett M, Kho ME, et al. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. CMAJ 2008; 179: 245–52. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.080372CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Burns KE, Kho ME. How to assess a survey report: a guide for readers and peer reviewers. CMAJ 2015; 187: E198–205. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.140545CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of Internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004; 6: e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Asch DA, Jedrzwieski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1129–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00126-1CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res 2001; 35: 1347–55.PubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Burns KE, Misak C, Herridge M, Meade MO, Oczkowski S, Patient and Family Partnership Committee of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Patient and family engagement in critical care in the ICU: untapped opportunities and under recognized challenges. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 198: 310–9. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201710-2032ci

20.

Burns KE, Rizvi L, Charteris A, et al. Characterizing citizens' preferences for engagement in patient care and research in adult and pediatric intensive care units. J Intensive Care Med 2020; 35: 170–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066617729127CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kleinpell R, Heyland DK, Lipman J, et al. Patient and family engagement in the ICU: report from the task force of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. J Crit Care 2018; 48: 251–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.09.006CrossRefPubMed

22.

Tobiano G, Mackie BR. Routine activities in the intensive care unit provide opportunities for family engagement. Aust Crit Care 2021; 34: 113–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2020.05.002CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hamilton R, Kleinpell R, Lipman J, Davidson JE. International facilitators and barriers to family engagement in the ICU: results of a qualitative analysis. J Crit Care 2020; 58: 72–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.04.011CrossRefPubMed

24.

McConnell B, Moroney T. Involving relatives in ICU patient care: critical care nursing challenges. J Clin Nurs 2015; 24: 991–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12755CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kleinpell R, Zimmerman J, Vermoch KL, et al. Promoting family engagement in the ICU: experience from a national collaborative of 63 ICUs. Crit Care Med 2019; 47: 1692–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000004009CrossRefPubMed

26.

Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, et al. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29: 1692–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2878-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Selker HP, Leslie LK, Wasser JS, Plaut AG, Wilson IB, Griffith JL. Tufts CTSI: comparative effectiveness research as a conceptual framework for a focus on impact. Clin Transl Sci 2010; 3: 56–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00184.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27: 985–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2037-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Telford R, Boote JD, Cooper CL. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expect 2004; 7: 209–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00278.xCrossRefPubMed

30.

Snape D, Kirkham J, Britten N, et al. Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e004943. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004943CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

INVOLVE. Payment for involvement: a guide for making payments to members of the public actively involved in NHS, public health and social care research, 2010. Available from URL: https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/documents/INVOLVEPayment%20Guiderev2012.pdf (accessed June 2022).

32.

Boote J, Twiddy M, Baird W, Birks Y, Clarke C, Beever D. Supporting public involvement in research design and grant development: a case study of a public involvement award scheme managed by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS). Health Expect 2015; 18: 1481–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12130CrossRefPubMed

33.

Walker DM, Pandya-Wood R. Can research development bursaries for patient and public involvement have a positive impact on grant applications? A UK-based, small-scale service evaluation. Health Expect 2015; 18: 1474–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12127

34.

Shen Sh, Doyle-Thomas KA, Beesley L, et al. How and why should we engage parents as co-researchers in health research? A scoping review of current practices. Health Expect 2017; 20: 543–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12490CrossRefPubMed

35.

Department of Health. Doing it with us not for us: strategic direction 2010–13, 2011. Available from URL: https://www.health.vic.gov.au/publications/doing-it-with-us-not-for-us-strategic-direction-2010-13 (accessed July 2022).

Title: Patient and family engagement in patient care and research in Canadian intensive care units: a national survey
Authors: Karen E. A. Burns, MD, FRCPC, MSc
Ellen McDonald, BScN
Sylvie Debigaré, MA
Nasim Zamir, MD, FRCPC
Moises Vasquez, MD
Mikael Piche-Ayotte, BSc
Simon Oczkowski, MD, FRCPC
for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
Publication date: 07-11-2022
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keyword: Care
Published in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie / Issue 12/2022
Print ISSN: 0832-610X
Electronic ISSN: 1496-8975
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-022-02342-w

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Patient and family engagement in patient care and research in Canadian intensive care units: a national survey

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2022

Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Response to: No community left behind: advancing rural anesthesia, surgery, and obstetric care in Canada

The impact of head and neck radiation on airway management: a retrospective data review

Changes in sensory block level during a programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen for labour analgesia: a prospective observational cohort study

Association of intraoperative dexmedetomidine use with postoperative hypotension in unilateral hip and knee arthroplasties: a historical cohort study

Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis