Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Family-Centered Care for Adult ICUs: 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".