The Initial Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on ICU Family Engagement: Lessons Learned From a Collaborative of 27 ICUs.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on family engagement among ICUs participating in a multicenter collaborative promoting implementation of family-centered care projects and to report sites' experiences with the collaborative itself prior to its cancelation due to the pandemic in March 2020. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Twenty-seven academic and community ICUs in the United States and South Korea. SUBJECTS: Site leaders. INTERVENTIONS: Prior to March 2020, all sites had participated in 6 months of webinars, monthly calls, and listserv communication to facilitate projects and to collect preimplementation family satisfaction and clinician perception data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Planned projects included ICU orientation initiatives (12, 44.4%), structured family care conferences (6, 22.2%), and ICU diaries (5, 18.5%). After cancelation of the collaborative, 22 site leaders (81.5%) were surveyed by phone from June 2020 to July 2020. Twenty (90.1%) reported having stopped their site project; projects that continued were 1) a standardized palliative extubation protocol and 2) daily written clinical summaries for families. Sites described significant variability in visitor restriction policies and uncertainty regarding future policy changes. Four sites (18.2%) reported that their hospital did not provide personal protective equipment to visitors. Regarding video conferencing with families, 11 sites (52.4%) reported clinicians' using their own personal devices. Two-hundred twelve family surveys and 346 clinician surveys collected prior to cancelation highlighted a broad need for family support. When leaders were asked on a scale from 0 to 10 how helpful collaborative activities had been prior to cancelation, mean response was 8.0 (sd 2.5). CONCLUSIONS: While the collaborative model can help promote ICU family engagement initiatives, coronavirus disease 2019 has impeded implementation of these initiatives even among motivated units. ICUs need adequate personal protective equipment for visitors and video conferencing capabilities on hospital devices while strict visitor restrictions continue to evolve.

Promoting Family Engagement in the ICU: Experience From a National Collaborative of 63 ICUs.

OBJECTIVES: As part of an improvement program targeting ICU, a national collaborative was launched to help hospitals implement patient- and family-centered care engagement initiatives. DESIGN: Ten-month quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: Guided by a national patient and family advisory group, participating teams implemented an individual project including open visitation; integrating families on rounds; establishing a patient and family advisory committee; using patient and family diaries, among others. SUBJECTS: Sixty-three adult and PICU teams from both academic and community hospitals in 34 states participated. INTERVENTIONS: Monthly team calls, quarterly webinars, newsletters, an online eCommunity, and team reporting assignments were used to facilitate project implementation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Family Satisfaction with Care in the ICU 24 was used to assess family satisfaction. Clinician perceptions were assessed with the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care Self-Assessment Inventory. Thematic analysis was used to explore narrative data captured from team reports of project barriers, facilitators, and the experience of participating in the collaborative. A total of 2,530 family member and 3,999 clinician surveys were completed. Postimplementation, family members reported statistically significant increases in overall family satisfaction, satisfaction with decision-making, and satisfaction with quality of care (Family Satisfaction with Care in the ICU mean score change range 0.83-1.24; p ≤ 0.027). Clinicians reported that opportunities for families to participate as members of the care team increased. Major barriers included lack of buy-in and ability to promote change in the clinical setting, managing the workload of implementation, and funding to support initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: A national collaborative format was useful to assist ICU teams to implement patient- and family-engagement initiatives. Enlisting stakeholder support, engaging unit-based champions, and highlighting benefits of family engagement can help ICU teams to promote family member involvement and engagement.

Understanding Global End-of-Life Care Practices: IHF 2014 Research Project.

This first-of-its kind survey of global end-of-life (EOL) practices uncovered major differences in how EOL care is defined, delivered, and measured. According to respondents from university hospitals and cancer centers in 17 countries, the primary challenges to providing effective EOL care are communication between clinicians and patients/families, cultural beliefs about death, entrenched staff beliefs about prolonging life, and lack of funding. However, many organizations are implementing improvements in EOL services that support hospital-wide identification of patients for whom such services are appropriate, screening to avoid needless aggressive therapies, enhanced provider education, and ways to assess quality of life for terminally ill patients.

Benchmarking patient- and family-centered care: highlights from a study of practices in 26 academic medical centers.

Patient- and family-centered care (PFCC) is premised on the belief that patients, families, and healthcare providers who are empowered and engaged throughout the healthcare system are integral components, with each vital to the delivery of quality and safe care. Adopting a PFCC culture can result in improved quality, safety, communication, and patient satisfaction. University HealthSystem Consortium hospitals that have adopted these concepts have demonstrated significant improvements. By using an initial survey, developing benchmark parameters, and conducting ongoing analysis and feedback, these hospitals have developed ways to reap many benefits.

Blood component preferences of transfusion services supporting infant transfusions: a University HealthSystem Consortium benchmarking study.

BACKGROUND: The extent of acceptability of red blood cells (RBCs) containing additive solutions (ASs) for low-volume neonatal transfusions among hospitals is unknown. Also unknown is whether hospitals have policies that address the risk of hyperkalemia associated with prolonged storage either with or without irradiation for neonatal transfusions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A benchmarking survey of University HealthSystem Consortium members included questions regarding the acceptability of RBC units containing ASs for low-volume neonatal transfusions, policies addressing the length of RBC storage in AS, and policies regarding storage periods after irradiation. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 47 respondents (60%) accept the use of at least one AS (AS-1, AS-3, or AS-5). Twenty-one (45%) accept the use of all three ASs for neonatal transfusions. Thirty-seven of 45 respondents (82%) do not have a policy requiring washing of RBCs used for low-volume transfusions beyond a specified number of days of storage or days after irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of institutions will use ASs, a significant number of institutions will not. The reasons for these policies were not elicited. Most respondents did not have a policy requiring washing beyond a specified number of days of storage or days after irradiation. Since RBCs stored for prolonged periods of time after irradiation have increased plasma potassium, it is important to develop policies to prevent clinically significant posttransfusion hyperkalemia in at-risk patients when RBCs are irradiated and not used immediately. More work still needs to be done to resolve these fundamental precepts of neonatal transfusion.