Family Members' Engagement in Symptom Communication, Assessment, and Management in the Intensive Care Unit: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Opportunities for communication and participation in decision making are limited for critically ill patients, but family members serving as surrogates enable empowerment of these patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore family members' engagement in symptom communication in the intensive care unit. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design using fieldwork methodology with triangulation of participant observation and individual interviews was conducted. Nine mechanically ventilated patients were observed in interaction with family members and clinicians in the intensive care unit. Six of the observed patients, 6 family members, and 9 clinicians were interviewed after participant observation. Field notes and transcripts were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's method of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Family members engaged actively in symptom communication, assessment, and management, and there were barriers and facilitators to family engagement. Three main themes and 9 subthemes describing family engagement emerged: (1) intermediary role (recognize and report symptoms, provide patient information, and assist in communication), (2) independent role (provide familiarity, manage symptoms, and promote patient communication), and (3) conditions for family engagement (intensive care unit environment, relationship with the patient, and patient preferences). DISCUSSION: Family members have unique knowledge of the patient that differs from and complement the competence of the staff, and might contribute to improved symptom communication. Future research should examine how family members can contribute to symptom communication, assessment, and management.

Three patterns of symptom communication between patients and clinicians in the intensive care unit: A fieldwork study.

AIM: To describe different patterns of communication aimed at preventing, identifying and managing symptoms between mechanically ventilated patients and clinicians in the intensive care unit. DESIGN: We conducted a fieldwork study with triangulation of participant observation and individual interviews. METHODS: Participant observation of nine patients and 50 clinicians: nurses, physiotherapists and physicians. Subsequent individual face-to-face interviews with nine of the clinicians, and six of the patients after they had regained their ability to speak and breathe spontaneously, were fully alert and felt well enough to sit through the interview. FINDINGS: Symptom communication was found to be an integral part of patient care. We identified three communication patterns: (1) proactive symptom communication, (2) reactive symptom communication and (3) lack of symptom communication. The three patterns co-existed in the cases and the first two complemented each other. The third pattern represents inadequate management of symptom distress. CONCLUSION: Recognition of symptoms in non-speaking intensive care patients is an important skill for clinicians. Our study uncovered three patterns of symptom communication, two of which promoted symptom management. The third pattern suggested that clinicians did not always acknowledge the symptom distress. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Proactive and reactive symptom assessment of non-speaking patients require patient verification when possible. Improved symptom prevention, identification and management require a combination of sound clinical judgement and attentiveness towards symptoms, implementation and use of relevant assessment tools, and implementation and skill building in augmentative and alternative communication. IMPACT: This study addressed the challenges of symptom communication between mechanically ventilated patients and clinicians in the intensive care unit. Our findings may have an impact on patients and clinicians concerned with symptom management in intensive care units. REPORTING METHOD: We used the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: A user representative was involved in the design of the study.

Unidentified communication challenges in the intensive care unit: A qualitative study using multiple triangulations.

BACKGROUND: Communication in the intensive care unit is challenged by patients' inability to speak owing to intubation, treatment, and illness. Research has focused on the use of communication tools or techniques, characteristics of the communication between patients and clinicians, and their experiences of communication challenges. However, few studies have combined the perspectives of patients, family members, and clinicians. We explored communication from different angles and investigated challenges that cannot be explained by ineffective use of aids and communication techniques. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore communication between patients, family members, and nurses and to investigate previously unidentified communication challenges. METHODS: This study used a case-oriented design with multiple triangulations. It was conducted in two general intensive care units at a Norwegian university hospital. Participant observations were conducted on nine mechanically ventilated patients while communicating with family members and healthcare personnel. Following the observations, individual interviews were conducted with six patients, six family members, and nine healthcare personnel. FINDINGS: Communication often seemed uncomplicated at the time of observations, but information from the interviews revealed another picture. We demonstrate what participants emphasised differently when they discussed their experiences, revealing a discrepancy in perceived importance in the situation. Family members had an important role in interpreting signs from the patient, uncovering challenges that would have been unknown to the nurses otherwise. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates how communication challenges in the intensive care unit may not be perceptible to an observer or to all of the participants involved at the time of the communication. Nurses need to be aware of these communication challenges and realise that the patient might face issues that cannot be easily solved without extensive involvement of the patient, family, and nurses, and perhaps not even until a later stage in the patient's recovery process.

What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process. With the advent of digitisation, journals started to offer electronic articles or publishing online only. A new philosophy regarding the peer review process found its way into academia: the open peer review. Open peer review as practiced by BioMed Central (BMC) is a type of peer review where the names of authors and reviewers are disclosed and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. A number of articles have been published to assess peer reviews using quantitative research. However, no studies exist that used qualitative methods to analyse the content of reviewers' comments. METHODS: A focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) was undertaken of manuscripts reporting qualitative research submitted to BMC open access journals from 1 January - 31 March 2018. Free-text reviewer comments were extracted from peer review reports using a 77-item classification system organised according to three key dimensions that represented common themes and sub-themes. A two stage analysis process was employed. First, frequency counts were undertaken that allowed revealing patterns across themes/sub-themes. Second, thematic analysis was conducted on selected themes of the narrative portion of reviewer reports. RESULTS: A total of 107 manuscripts submitted to nine open-access journals were included in the FMRS. The frequency analysis revealed that among the 30 most frequently employed themes "writing criteria" (dimension II) is the top ranking theme, followed by comments in relation to the "methods" (dimension I). Besides that, some results suggest an underlying quantitative mindset of reviewers. Results are compared and contrasted in relation to established reporting guidelines for qualitative research to inform reviewers and authors of frequent feedback offered to enhance the quality of manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: This FMRS has highlighted some important issues that hold lessons for authors, reviewers and editors. We suggest modifying the current reporting guidelines by including a further item called "Degree of data transformation" to prompt authors and reviewers to make a judgment about the appropriateness of the degree of data transformation in relation to the chosen analysis method. Besides, we suggest that completion of a reporting checklist on submission becomes a requirement.

Postgraduate students' perceptions of high-quality precepting in critical care nursing.

Education of critical care nurses in Norway consists of equal parts clinical practice and theoretical education. The purpose of this study was to investigate postgraduate students' perceptions of the one-on-one, bedside precepting they received during their critical care education. Two focus group interviews with students at a Norwegian university college were conducted, and a thematic cross-case analysis was done. The interviewees characterized high-quality precepting as precepting where proper precepting strategies are applied, right priorities in precepting are made, the preceptor possesses desirable qualities, and there is a good preceptor-student relationship. High-quality precepting of postgraduate critical care nursing students should reflect the complexity of the profession, emphasizing both practical and theoretical knowledge. Strategies resembling both the master-apprentice model and the reflective counselling model should be applied. Postgraduate students' characterizations of high-quality precepting should be taken into consideration when preparing critical care nurses to undertake precepting within clinical education. Attention should be paid to the difference between undergraduate students and postgraduate students educating for a speciality.