Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34615524›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Family support on intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative evaluation study into experiences of relatives.

Hanna T Klop, Mana Nasori, Tjitske W Klinge, Rianne Hoopman, Mirjam A de Vos, Chantal du Perron, Lia van Zuylen, Monique Steegers, Birkitt L Ten Tusscher, Floor C H Abbink and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Indoor COFrontiers in medicine · 2023
    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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Hanna T KlopAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute (APH), De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands. j.klop@amsterdamUMC.nl.
Mana NasoriDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tjitske W KlingeDepartment of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Rianne HoopmanAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute (APH), De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mirjam A de VosDepartment of Paediatrics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Chantal du PerronAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute (APH), De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Lia van ZuylenExpertise Center for Palliative Care Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Monique SteegersExpertise Center for Palliative Care Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Birkitt L Ten TusscherDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU Medical Center, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Floor C H AbbinkDepartment of Paediatrics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Bregje D Onwuteaka-PhilipsenAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute (APH), De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
H Roeline W PasmanAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute (APH), De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLNetherlands Center for Occupational Diseases · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, relatives of patients with COVID-19 admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) were severely restricted in visiting their relatives and in communicating with treating physicians. Family communication is a core element of critical care, however, this pandemic forced medical ICU staff to arrange alternative family support for instance by Family Support Teams (FSTs), consisting of non-ICU affiliated staff who telephonically contacted relatives. This study aims to examine relatives' experiences with FSTs on two ICUs of a Dutch university medical centre, and to evaluate its working strategies. .

methodsIn a semi-structured interview study, relatives of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU's, who had been supported by the FSTs, were sampled purposively. Twenty-one interviews were conducted telephonically by three researchers. All interviews were topic list guided and audio-recorded. Data was analysed thematically.

resultsAll participants indicated they went through a rough time. Almost all evaluated the FSTs positively. Four major themes were identified. First, three important pillars of the FSTs were providing relatives with transparency about the patients' situation, providing attention to relatives' well-being, and providing predictability and certainty by calling on a daily basis in a period characterised by insecurity. Second, relatives appeared to fulfil their information needs by calls of the FSTs, but also by calling the attending ICU nurse. Information provided by the FSTs was associated with details and reliability, information provided by nurses was associated with the patient's daily care. Third, being a primary family contact was generally experienced as both valuable and as an emotional burden. Last, participants missed proper aftercare. Family support often stopped directly after the patient died or had left the ICU. Relatives expressed a need for extended support after that moment since they had strong emotions after discharge or death of the patient.

conclusionsFamily support in times of the extreme COVID-19 situation is important, as relatives are restricted in communication and have a strong need for information and support. Relatives feel encouraged by structure, frequency, support and understanding by FSTs. However, remote family support should be tailored to the needs of relatives. A fixed contact person on de ICU and video calling might be good extra options for family support, also in future post COVID-19 care, but cannot replace physical visits.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansIntensive Care UnitsReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Critical careFamily centred careFamily supportHealth care innovationICUPandemicRelatives

Identifiers

PMID34615524
PMCPMC8494165
OpenAlexW3204681434

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.