A Concurrent, Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Four Supports Intervention in ICUs

Taylor E. Lincoln MD , Rachel A. Butler MHA, MPH , Anne-Marie Shields MSN, RN , Kate Petty MD , Tracy Campbell MD , Johanna Bellon PhD, CFA , Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk MS, RN , Jennifer B. Seaman PhD, RN , Kimberly J. Rak PhD , Caroline Pidro BS , Rachel M. Gustafson DNP, RN , Kristyn Felman MPH, CPH, MSW , Wendy Stonehouse MSN, RN , Mary Beth Happ PhD, RN , Mi-Kyung Song PhD, RN , Charles F. Reynolds III MD , Jennifer Q. Morse PhD , Seth Landefeld MD , Derek Angus MD, MPH, FRCP , Robert M. Arnold MD , Douglas B. White MD, MAS
{"title":"A Concurrent, Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Four Supports Intervention in ICUs","authors":"Taylor E. Lincoln MD ,&nbsp;Rachel A. Butler MHA, MPH ,&nbsp;Anne-Marie Shields MSN, RN ,&nbsp;Kate Petty MD ,&nbsp;Tracy Campbell MD ,&nbsp;Johanna Bellon PhD, CFA ,&nbsp;Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk MS, RN ,&nbsp;Jennifer B. Seaman PhD, RN ,&nbsp;Kimberly J. Rak PhD ,&nbsp;Caroline Pidro BS ,&nbsp;Rachel M. Gustafson DNP, RN ,&nbsp;Kristyn Felman MPH, CPH, MSW ,&nbsp;Wendy Stonehouse MSN, RN ,&nbsp;Mary Beth Happ PhD, RN ,&nbsp;Mi-Kyung Song PhD, RN ,&nbsp;Charles F. Reynolds III MD ,&nbsp;Jennifer Q. Morse PhD ,&nbsp;Seth Landefeld MD ,&nbsp;Derek Angus MD, MPH, FRCP ,&nbsp;Robert M. Arnold MD ,&nbsp;Douglas B. White MD, MAS","doi":"10.1016/j.chstcc.2025.100164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Surrogate decision-makers in ICUs frequently struggle in this role and experience lasting psychological distress. A recent multicenter trial of the Four Supports Intervention, a multicomponent family support intervention delivered by an external interventionist, revealed that the intervention did not improve patient- or family-centered outcomes, but the main trial results do not provide insights into why the intervention was ineffective.</div></div><div><h3>Research Question</h3><div>How was the Four Supports Intervention experienced by families and clinicians and how can the intervention be improved?</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Methods</h3><div>We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods evaluation of the Four Supports Intervention among 45 participants in the intervention arm of the trial (30 surrogates and 15 clinicians). The research team and participants were masked to trial results during data collection and analysis. Participants completed a quantitative survey and a semistructured interview focusing on their perceptions of whether the intervention provided emotional support to surrogates, facilitated effective clinician-family communication, and fostered patient-centered decision-making. Coders used a thematic analysis approach to identify key themes from the interviews.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Ninety percent of surrogates perceived that the intervention improved the degree to which their needs and concerns were addressed, 93% of surrogates and 100% of clinicians perceived that the intervention improved clinician-family communication, and 87% of surrogates and 87% of clinicians reported that the intervention improved the patient-centeredness of care. Key themes from the interviews with surrogates included that the interventionist provided comfort, was present and listened during a difficult time, and ensured that needed clinician-family conversations happened. Interviews with clinicians revealed that the intervention prepared family members for the role of surrogate decision-maker, helped in recognizing and addressing nascent misunderstandings, and aided creation of positive clinician-family relationships. Surrogates and clinicians suggested potential improvements, including extending the intervention into the period after discharge, better integrating the interventionists’ role with the ICU team, and prioritizing families most in need.</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>Surrogate decision-makers and clinicians reported that the Four Supports Intervention improved emotional support for surrogates and communication about goals of care. In light of the negative trial results, these findings have important implications for the field.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93934,"journal":{"name":"CHEST critical care","volume":"3 3","pages":"Article 100164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CHEST critical care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949788425000371","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

Surrogate decision-makers in ICUs frequently struggle in this role and experience lasting psychological distress. A recent multicenter trial of the Four Supports Intervention, a multicomponent family support intervention delivered by an external interventionist, revealed that the intervention did not improve patient- or family-centered outcomes, but the main trial results do not provide insights into why the intervention was ineffective.

Research Question

How was the Four Supports Intervention experienced by families and clinicians and how can the intervention be improved?

Study Design and Methods

We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods evaluation of the Four Supports Intervention among 45 participants in the intervention arm of the trial (30 surrogates and 15 clinicians). The research team and participants were masked to trial results during data collection and analysis. Participants completed a quantitative survey and a semistructured interview focusing on their perceptions of whether the intervention provided emotional support to surrogates, facilitated effective clinician-family communication, and fostered patient-centered decision-making. Coders used a thematic analysis approach to identify key themes from the interviews.

Results

Ninety percent of surrogates perceived that the intervention improved the degree to which their needs and concerns were addressed, 93% of surrogates and 100% of clinicians perceived that the intervention improved clinician-family communication, and 87% of surrogates and 87% of clinicians reported that the intervention improved the patient-centeredness of care. Key themes from the interviews with surrogates included that the interventionist provided comfort, was present and listened during a difficult time, and ensured that needed clinician-family conversations happened. Interviews with clinicians revealed that the intervention prepared family members for the role of surrogate decision-maker, helped in recognizing and addressing nascent misunderstandings, and aided creation of positive clinician-family relationships. Surrogates and clinicians suggested potential improvements, including extending the intervention into the period after discharge, better integrating the interventionists’ role with the ICU team, and prioritizing families most in need.

Interpretation

Surrogate decision-makers and clinicians reported that the Four Supports Intervention improved emotional support for surrogates and communication about goals of care. In light of the negative trial results, these findings have important implications for the field.
icu四种支持干预的并发、混合方法评价
icu的替代决策者经常在这一角色中挣扎,并经历持久的心理困扰。最近的一项多中心试验的四支持干预,多组件的家庭支持干预提供了一个外部干预,显示干预并没有改善患者或家庭为中心的结果,但主要的试验结果并没有提供见解为什么干预是无效的。研究问题:家庭和临床医生对四种支持干预的体验如何?如何改进干预?研究设计和方法我们在试验干预组的45名参与者(30名代理人和15名临床医生)中同时进行了四种支持干预的混合方法评估。在数据收集和分析过程中,研究小组和参与者对试验结果不知情。参与者完成了一项定量调查和半结构化访谈,重点是他们对干预是否为代孕母亲提供了情感支持、促进了有效的临床-家庭沟通、促进了以患者为中心的决策的看法。编码员使用主题分析方法从访谈中确定关键主题。结果90%的代理人认为干预改善了他们的需求和关注得到解决的程度,93%的代理人和100%的临床医生认为干预改善了医生与家庭的沟通,87%的代理人和87%的临床医生报告说干预改善了以病人为中心的护理。与代理人访谈的关键主题包括干预者提供安慰,在困难时期在场并倾听,并确保必要的临床医生-家庭对话发生。与临床医生的访谈显示,干预使家庭成员为替代决策者的角色做好准备,有助于认识和解决新生的误解,并有助于建立积极的临床医生-家庭关系。代理人和临床医生提出了可能的改进措施,包括将干预延长至出院后,更好地整合干预师与ICU团队的角色,并优先考虑最需要的家庭。代理人决策者和临床医生报告说,四种支持干预改善了代理人的情感支持和关于护理目标的沟通。鉴于否定的试验结果,这些发现对该领域具有重要意义。
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
CHEST critical care
CHEST critical care Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信