Experiences with and needs for aftercare following the death of a loved one in the ICU: a mixed-methods study among bereaved relatives.

BACKGROUND: Bereaved relatives of intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at increased risk of psychological complaints. Aftercare might help them cope with processing the ICU admission and their loved one's death. There is little (qualitative) evidence on how bereaved relatives experience aftercare. Also, the COVID-19 pandemic likely impacted aftercare provision. We aim to examine how many relatives in Dutch ICUs received aftercare before and during the pandemic and to qualitatively describe their experiences and needs regarding aftercare. METHODS: A mixed-methods study among relatives of patients who died in an ICU before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bereaved relatives in six ICUs completed a questionnaire (n = 90), including two items on aftercare. These were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-squared tests. Subsequently, both relatives that received and relatives that did not receive aftercare were interviewed about their experiences and needs regarding aftercare. The interviews were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: After the passing of a loved one, 44% of the relatives were asked by a healthcare professional from the hospital how they were doing, and 26% had had a follow-up conversation. Both happened more often during the first wave of the pandemic than during the second wave or before the pandemic. The most common reason for not having had a follow-up conversation was not knowing about this option (44%), followed by not feeling a need (26%). Regarding the latter, interviewed relatives explained that this would not revive their loved one or that they had already discussed everything they wanted. Relatives who wanted a follow-up conversation, wanted this because this would help them realize the severity of their loved one's illness, to exchange personal experiences, and/or to thank the ICU team. Those with a follow-up conversation said that they had reviewed the medical course of the admission and/or discussed their (mental) well-being. CONCLUSIONS: ICU healthcare professionals may play a vital role in addressing aftercare needs by asking relatives how they are doing in the weeks following the death of their loved one and offering them a follow-up conversation with an ICU physician. We recommend to include aftercare for bereaved relatives in ICU guidelines.

Support for relatives in the intensive care unit: lessons from a cross-sectional multicentre cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Support for relatives is highly important in the intensive care unit (ICU). During the first COVID-19 wave  support for relatives had to be changed considerably. The alternative support could have decreased the quality and sense of support. We aimed to evaluate how support for relatives in Dutch ICUs was organised during the first COVID-19 wave and how this was experienced by these relatives in comparison to relatives from pre-COVID-19 and the second wave. Additionally, we aimed to investigate which elements of support are associated with positive experiences. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional multicentre cohort study in six Dutch ICUs in the Netherlands. Written questionnaires were distributed among relatives of ICU patients from pre-COVID-19, the first wave and the second wave. The questionnaire included questions on demographics, the organisation of support, and the experiences and satisfaction of relatives with the support. RESULTS: A total of 329 relatives completed the questionnaire (52% partner, 72% woman and 63% ICU stay of 11 days or longer). Support for relatives of ICU patients during the first COVID-19 wave differed significantly from pre-COVID-19 and the second wave. Differences were found in all categories of elements of support: who, when, how and what. Overall, relatives from the three time periods were very positive about the support. The only difference in satisfaction between the three time periods, was the higher proportion of relatives indicating that healthcare professionals had enough time for them during the first wave. Elements of support which were associated with many positive experiences and satisfaction were: fixed timeslot, receiving information (e.g. leaflets) on ≥ 2 topics, discussing > 5 topics with healthcare professionals, and being offered emotional support. CONCLUSIONS: Although, support for relatives in the ICU changed considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic, relatives were still positive about this support. The altered support gave insight into avenues for improvement for future comparable situations as well as for normal daily ICU practice: e.g. daily contact at a fixed timeslot, offering video calling between patients and relatives, and offering emotional support. ICUs should consider which elements need improvement in their practice.

Family support on intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative evaluation study into experiences of relatives.

BACKGROUND: During the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, relatives of patients with COVID-19 admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) were severely restricted in visiting their relatives and in communicating with treating physicians. Family communication is a core element of critical care, however, this pandemic forced medical ICU staff to arrange alternative family support for instance by Family Support Teams (FSTs), consisting of non-ICU affiliated staff who telephonically contacted relatives. This study aims to examine relatives' experiences with FSTs on two ICUs of a Dutch university medical centre, and to evaluate its working strategies. . METHODS: In a semi-structured interview study, relatives of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU's, who had been supported by the FSTs, were sampled purposively. Twenty-one interviews were conducted telephonically by three researchers. All interviews were topic list guided and audio-recorded. Data was analysed thematically. RESULTS: All participants indicated they went through a rough time. Almost all evaluated the FSTs positively. Four major themes were identified. First, three important pillars of the FSTs were providing relatives with transparency about the patients' situation, providing attention to relatives' well-being, and providing predictability and certainty by calling on a daily basis in a period characterised by insecurity. Second, relatives appeared to fulfil their information needs by calls of the FSTs, but also by calling the attending ICU nurse. Information provided by the FSTs was associated with details and reliability, information provided by nurses was associated with the patient's daily care. Third, being a primary family contact was generally experienced as both valuable and as an emotional burden. Last, participants missed proper aftercare. Family support often stopped directly after the patient died or had left the ICU. Relatives expressed a need for extended support after that moment since they had strong emotions after discharge or death of the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Family support in times of the extreme COVID-19 situation is important, as relatives are restricted in communication and have a strong need for information and support. Relatives feel encouraged by structure, frequency, support and understanding by FSTs. However, remote family support should be tailored to the needs of relatives. A fixed contact person on de ICU and video calling might be good extra options for family support, also in future post COVID-19 care, but cannot replace physical visits.