Family-Reported Experiences Evaluation (FREE) study: a mixed-methods study to evaluate families’ satisfaction with adult critical care services in the NHS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background To improve care it is necessary to feed back experiences of those receiving care. Of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), approximately one-quarter die, and few survivors recollect their experiences, so family members have a vital role. The most widely validated tool to seek their views is the Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit questionnaire (FS-ICU). Objectives To test face and content validity and comprehensibility of the FS-ICU (phase 1). To establish internal consistency, construct validity and reliability of the FS-ICU; to describe family satisfaction and explore how it varies by family member, patient, unit/hospital and other contextual factors and by country; and to model approaches to sampling for future use in quality improvement (phase 2). Design Mixed methods: qualitative study (phase 1) and cohort study (phase 2). Setting NHS ICUs (n = 2, phase 1;n = 20, phase 2). Participants Health-care professionals, ex-patients, family members of ICU patients (n = 41, phase 1). Family members of ICU patients (n = 12,303, phase 2). Interventions None. Main outcome measures Key themes regarding each item of the 24-item FS-ICU (FS-ICU-24) (phase 1). Overall family satisfaction and domain scores of the FS-ICU-24 (phase 2). Results In phase 1, face validity, content validity and comprehensibility were good. Adaptation to the UK required only minor edits. In phase 2, one to four family members were recruited for 60.6% of 10,530 patients (staying in ICU for 24 hours or more). Of 12,303 family members, 7173 (58.3%) completed the questionnaire. Psychometric assessment of the questionnaire established high internal consistency and criterion validity. Exploratory factor analysis indicated new domains:satisfaction with care,satisfaction with informationandsatisfaction with the decision-making process. All scores were high with skewed distributions towards more positive scores. For family members of ICU survivors, factors associated with increased/decreased satisfaction were age, ethnicity, relationship to patient, and visit frequency, and patient factors were acute severity of illness and invasive ventilation. For family members of ICU non-survivors, average satisfaction was higher but no family member factors were associated with increased/decreased satisfaction; patient factors were age, acute severity of illness and duration of stay. Neither ICU/hospital factors nor seasonality were associated. Funnel plots confirmed significant variation in family satisfaction across ICUs. Adjusting for family member and patient characteristics reduced variation, resulting in fewer ICUs identified as potential outliers. Simulations suggested that family satisfaction surveys using short recruitment windows can produce relatively unbiased estimates of average family satisfaction. Conclusions The Family-Reported Experiences Evaluation study has provided a UK-adapted, psychometrically valid questionnaire for overall family satisfaction and three domains. The large sample size allowed for robust multilevel multivariable modelling of factors associated with family satisfaction to inform important adjustment of any future evaluation. Limitations Responses to three free-text questions indicate the questionnaire may not be sensitive to all aspects of family satisfaction. Future work Reservations remain about the current questionnaire. While formal analysis of the free-text questions did not form part of this proposal, brief analysis suggested considerable scope for improvement of the FS-ICU-24. Study registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47363549. Funding details The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».