Early mobility and family partnerships in the intensive care unit: A scoping review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness significantly impacts the well-being of patients and families. Previous studies show that family members are willing to participate in patient care. Involving families in early mobility interventions may contribute to improved recovery and positive outcomes for patients and families. AIM: In this scoping review, we investigated early mobility interventions for critically ill patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials and the extent to which family engagement in those interventions are reported in the literature. STUDY DESIGN: In this scoping review of reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane Central databases were searched in October 2019 and updated in February 2022. Systematic reviews were included and assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. Data were synthesized using a narrative approach. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were adhered to for reporting. RESULTS: Thirty-three reviews were included which described a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients; none explicitly mentioned family engagement. Almost half of the reviews were of low or critically low quality. Insufficient detail of early mobility interventions prompted information to be extracted from the primary studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients but few involve families. Given the positive outcomes of family participation, and family willingness to participate in care, there is a need to explore the feasibility and acceptability of family participation in early mobility interventions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Family engagement in early mobility interventions for critically ill patients should be encouraged and supported. How to best support family members and clinicians in enacting family involvement in early mobility requires further investigation.

Healthcare professionals perspectives on feasibility and acceptability of family engagement in early mobilisation for adult critically ill patients: A descriptive qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore healthcare professionals' perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of family engagement in early mobilisation for adult critically ill patients. BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation is beneficial to minimise intensive care unit acquired-weakness in critically ill patients and family engagement can help with meeting early mobilisation goals, but it is not widely practiced. Understanding healthcare professionals' perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of family engagement in early mobilisation of adult critically ill patients is required to inform future implementation strategies to promote early mobilisation. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative study. METHODS: Face-to-face, individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted between August 2021 and March 2022 with healthcare professionals working in two intensive care units in Australia. The interviews were analysed using the inductive content analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to summarise participant characteristics. The COREQ checklist was followed when reporting this study. RESULTS: Eleven ICU nurses, five physiotherapists and four physicians participated in the interviews. Three main categories were identified: (i) healthcare professionals' readiness, (ii) mediators of engagement and (iii) foundations for successful implementation. Most participants demonstrated a positive attitude towards an implementation of family engagement in early mobilisation for adult critically ill patients; however, capability and capacity of healthcare professionals, family members' willingness, availability and readiness and the care context were considered factors that could influence the successful implementation. CONCLUSION: From the perspectives of healthcare professionals, family engagement in early mobilisation is feasible and acceptable to enact but implementation is influenced by contextual factors including, healthcare professionals' capability and capacity and family members' willingness, availability and readiness. Collaborative teamwork and preparing family members and healthcare professionals are needed to support this practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings provide important information to further identify potential strategies of family engagement in early mobilisation and to help and mitigate factors that impede implementation.

Older patient and family discharge medication communication: A mixed-methods study.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Medication discrepancies place patients discharged from hospital at risk of adverse medication events. Patient and family participation in medication communication may improve medication safety. This study aimed to examine older medical patient and family participation in discharge medication communication. METHODS: Two-phased mixed-methods study. Data were collected from July 2018 to May 2019. Phase 1 comprised observations and a questionnaire of 30 patients pre-hospital discharge. Phase 2 involved telephone interviews with 11 patients and family members post-hospital discharge. Phase 1 analysis included descriptive statistics and deductive content analysis. Inductive content analysis was used in Phase 2. Phase 1 and 2 findings were integrated. RESULTS: For Phase 1, observational data were deductively coded against the "continuum of patient participation"; information-giving was the most frequent level of participation observed on the continuum, followed by information-seeking, shared decision making, non-involved, and finally autonomous decision making. For descriptive statistics, written communication tools, noise, and interruptions were frequently observed during medication communication. In Phase 2, three categories were found about how patients and families participate, and the factors influencing their participation: (a) obtaining comprehensive medication information; (b) preferred approaches for receiving information; and (c) speaking about medications in hospital. Integrated findings showed that written communication tools and routine hospital tasks may promote, while lack of family presence and environmental factors may hinder medication communication. Patients' and families' role in medication communication ranged from asking questions to influencing decisions, and was enhanced by health care professionals' patient-centred communication. CONCLUSIONS: More active patient and family participation could be achieved by encouraging them to identify medication-related problems. To create a climate for patient and family participation, health care professionals should use written communication tools, capitalize on participation opportunities during routine hospital tasks, and use patient-centred communication.