Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27566711›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2016

Reappraisal of visiting policies and procedures of patient's family information in 188 French ICUs: a report of the Outcomerea Research Group.

Maité Garrouste-Orgeas, Isabelle Vinatier, Alexis Tabah, Benoit Misset, Jean-François Timsit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A global call for family-centered ICU care.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Family experiences and perceptions of intensive care unit care and communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Maité Garrouste-OrgeasIAME, UMR 1137, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Diderot University, 75018, Paris, France. mgarrouste@hpsj.fr.
Isabelle VinatierMedical-Surgical ICU, Les Oudaries Hospital, La Roche-Sur-Yon, France.
Alexis TabahDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Benoit MissetMedical ICU, Charles Nicolle University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Jean-François TimsitIAME, UMR 1137, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Diderot University, 75018, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe relatives of intensive care unit (ICU) patients must cope with both the severity of illness of their loved one and the unfamiliar and stressful ICU environment. This hardship may lead to post-intensive care syndrome. French guidelines provide recommendations on welcoming and informing families of ICU patients. We questioned whether and how they are applied 5 years after their publication.

methodsWe conducted a large survey among French ICUs to evaluate their visiting policies and how information was provided to patient's family. A questionnaire was built up by intensivists and nurses. French ICUs were solicited, and the questionnaire was sent to all participating ICUs, for being filled in by the unit medical and/or nursing head. Data regarding the hospital and ICU characteristics, the visiting policy and procedures, and the management of family information were collected.

resultsAmong the 289 French ICUs, 188 (65 %) participated. Most ICUs have a waiting room 118/188 (62.8 %) and a dedicated room for meeting the family 152/188 (80.8 %). Of the 188 ICUs, 45 (23.9 %) were opened on a 24-h-a-day basis. In the remaining ICUs, the time period allowed for visits was 4.75 ± 1.83 h (median 5 h). In ICUs where visiting restrictions were reported, open visiting was allowed for end-of-life situations in 107/143 (74.8 %). Children are allowed to visit a patient in 164/188 (87.2 %) regardless of their age in 97/164 (59.1 %) of ICUs. Families received an information leaflet in 168/188 (89.3 %). Information was provided to families through structured meetings in 149/188 (79.2 %) of ICUs at patient admission with participation of nurses and nursing assistants in 133/188 (70.4 %) and 55/188 (29.2 %), respectively. Information delivered to the family was reported in the patient chart by only 111/188 ICUs (59 %). Participation in care was infrequent.

conclusionsAlthough French ICUs do not follow the consensus recommendations, slow progress exists compared to previous reports. Implementation of these recommendations is largely needed to offer better welcome and information improvement. Further studies on that topic would enable evaluating remaining obstacles and increasing caregivers' awareness, both critical for further progresses on that topic.

Indexed as

Access to informationFamilyFamily information meetingICUInformation to familyPost-intensive care syndromeVisiting policy

Identifiers

PMID27566711
PMCPMC4999564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.