Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Family-Centered Care for Adult ICUs: 2024
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
RATIONALE: For staff in adult ICUs, providing family-centered care is an essential skill that affects important outcomes for both patients and families. The COVID-19 pandemic placed unprecedented strain on care of ICU families, and practices for family engagement and support are still adjusting. OBJECTIVES: To review updated evidence for family support in adult ICUs, provide clear recommendations, and spotlight optimal family-centered care practices post-pandemic. PANEL DESIGN: The multiprofessional guideline panel of 28 individuals, including family member partners, applied the processes described in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Standard Operating Procedures Manual to develop and publish evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection, writing, and voting. METHODS: The guidelines consist of four content sections: engagement of families, support of family needs, communication support, and support of ICU clinicians providing family-centered care. We conducted systematic reviews for 15 Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes questions, organized among these content sections, to identify the best available evidence. We summarized and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or conditional, or as best practice statements where appropriate. The recommendations were approved using an online vote requiring greater than 80% agreement of voting panel members to pass. RESULTS: Our panel issued 17 statements related to optimal family-centered care in adult ICUs, including one strong recommendation, 14 conditional recommendations, and two best practice statements. We reaffirmed the critical importance of liberalized family presence policies as default practice when possible and suggested options for family attendance on rounds and participation in bedside care. We suggested that ICUs provide support for families in the form of educational programs; ICU diaries; and mental health, bereavement, and spiritual support. We suggested the importance of providing structured communication for families and communication training for clinicians but did not recommend for or against any specific clinician-facing tools for family support or decision aids, based on current available evidence. We recommended that adult ICUs implement practices to systematically identify and reduce barriers to equitable critical care delivery for families and suggested that programs designed to support the wellbeing of clinicians responsible for family support be developed. CONCLUSIONS: Our guideline panel achieved consensus regarding recommendations and best practices for family-centered care in adult ICUs.
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 | 0,033 | 0,118 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,013 |
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 ».