Impact of Shared Decision-Making on Family Satisfaction With Intensive Care Services: 'Share With Care' has a New Meaning in ICU.

Margiben Tusharbhai Bhatt, Souvik Chaudhuri, Sunil Ravindranath, Viha Atri, Sagar Shanmukhappa Maddani, Vishwas P, Roshan Fernandes
{"title":"Impact of Shared Decision-Making on Family Satisfaction With Intensive Care Services: 'Share With Care' has a New Meaning in ICU.","authors":"Margiben Tusharbhai Bhatt, Souvik Chaudhuri, Sunil Ravindranath, Viha Atri, Sagar Shanmukhappa Maddani, Vishwas P, Roshan Fernandes","doi":"10.1177/10499091241287861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Physician's clinical inputs and informed bystander opinions are essential for successful intensive care unit (ICU) patient outcomes. There is insufficient data regarding the impact of shared decision-making on treatment outcomes and family satisfaction in Indian ICU settings. We aimed to determine the effect of shared decision-making factors on family satisfaction with ICU services. <b>Patients and Methods:</b> Family bystanders of 336 ICU patients with a stay >72 hours were conveniently surveyed across 13 months prospectively using Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit 24 Revised (FS-ICU 24R) questionnaire. We analyzed the responses to determine shared decision-making factors impacting family satisfaction. <b>Results:</b> Univariate analysis of ten variables of FS-ICU 24R questionnaire decision-making subscale revealed that consistency of information (OR 8.71, <i>P</i> < 0.001), honesty of information (OR 7.04, <i>P</i> < 0.001), and frequency of communication with doctors (OR 6.25, <i>P</i> < 0.001) were associated with highest odds of family involvement and satisfaction. Multivariable logistic regression showed that consistency of information (adjusted OR 3.85, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and frequent doctor communication (adjusted OR 2.22, <i>P</i> = 0.02) were independent predictors associated with family satisfaction. The number of decision-makers (<i>P</i> = 0.463) or family's prior ICU experience (<i>P</i> = 0.430) was not associated with family satisfaction. <b>Conclusion:</b> A consistent and honest effort to cater to the family's information needs and frequent physician-bystander interaction is essential for family's satisfaction with ICU services. This even outweighs other decision-making factors such as number of decision-makers and their prior ICU experience. Incorporating shared decision-making in counseling should be a continuing practice.<b>Trial registry name:</b> Clinical Trials Registry - India.<b>Registration number:</b> CTRI/2022/09/045571.</p>","PeriodicalId":94222,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","volume":" ","pages":"10499091241287861"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091241287861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Physician's clinical inputs and informed bystander opinions are essential for successful intensive care unit (ICU) patient outcomes. There is insufficient data regarding the impact of shared decision-making on treatment outcomes and family satisfaction in Indian ICU settings. We aimed to determine the effect of shared decision-making factors on family satisfaction with ICU services. Patients and Methods: Family bystanders of 336 ICU patients with a stay >72 hours were conveniently surveyed across 13 months prospectively using Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit 24 Revised (FS-ICU 24R) questionnaire. We analyzed the responses to determine shared decision-making factors impacting family satisfaction. Results: Univariate analysis of ten variables of FS-ICU 24R questionnaire decision-making subscale revealed that consistency of information (OR 8.71, P < 0.001), honesty of information (OR 7.04, P < 0.001), and frequency of communication with doctors (OR 6.25, P < 0.001) were associated with highest odds of family involvement and satisfaction. Multivariable logistic regression showed that consistency of information (adjusted OR 3.85, P < 0.001) and frequent doctor communication (adjusted OR 2.22, P = 0.02) were independent predictors associated with family satisfaction. The number of decision-makers (P = 0.463) or family's prior ICU experience (P = 0.430) was not associated with family satisfaction. Conclusion: A consistent and honest effort to cater to the family's information needs and frequent physician-bystander interaction is essential for family's satisfaction with ICU services. This even outweighs other decision-making factors such as number of decision-makers and their prior ICU experience. Incorporating shared decision-making in counseling should be a continuing practice.Trial registry name: Clinical Trials Registry - India.Registration number: CTRI/2022/09/045571.

共同决策对重症监护服务家属满意度的影响:关爱共享 "在重症监护病房有了新的含义。
背景:医生的临床意见和旁观者的知情意见对重症监护病房(ICU)患者的成功治疗至关重要。关于印度重症监护病房中共同决策对治疗效果和家属满意度的影响,目前还没有足够的数据。我们旨在确定共同决策因素对重症监护室服务家属满意度的影响。患者和方法:我们使用重症监护病房家属满意度 24 修订版(FS-ICU 24R)问卷对 336 名住院时间超过 72 小时的重症监护病房患者的旁观家属进行了为期 13 个月的前瞻性调查。我们对回答进行了分析,以确定影响家属满意度的共同决策因素。结果如下对 FS-ICU 24R 问卷决策子量表的十个变量进行单变量分析后发现,信息的一致性(OR 8.71,P < 0.001)、信息的真实性(OR 7.04,P < 0.001)和与医生沟通的频率(OR 6.25,P < 0.001)与家属参与和满意度的最高几率相关。多变量逻辑回归显示,信息的一致性(调整后 OR 3.85,P < 0.001)和与医生沟通的频繁程度(调整后 OR 2.22,P = 0.02)是与家属满意度相关的独立预测因素。决策者人数(P = 0.463)或家属之前的 ICU 经验(P = 0.430)与家属满意度无关。结论:持续、真诚地满足家属对信息的需求以及医生与旁观者之间频繁的互动对于家属对 ICU 服务的满意度至关重要。这甚至超过了其他决策因素,如决策者的人数及其之前的 ICU 经验。在咨询中纳入共同决策应该是一种持续的做法。试验登记处名称:临床试验登记处-印度。登记号:ctri/2022/09/04:CTRI/2022/09/045571.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信