ArticleHealth science reports2021
Perceptions of quality of communication in family interactions in neurocritical care.
Article in Health science reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions of quality of communication in family interactions in neurocritical care.Health science reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveGiven the challenges of patient-provider communication in neurocritical care lacking robust decision-making tools on prognostication, we investigated concordance in perceptions of communication among participants in family discussions and assess the different domains of communication that affect these perceptions.
methodsProspective observational study conducted over 4 months in a tertiary-level academic medical center neurocritical care unit. Our study involved family discussions regarding plan of care for admitted patients observed by a neutral observer. All participants completed a survey. The first four questions rated the understanding of the discussion and general satisfaction; the remaining questions were open-ended to assess the quality of communication by the physician leading the discussion. Responses were scored and compared among participants using a Likert scale. A difference of < 1 in scores among participants was rated as concordance, whereas that of > 1 was designated as discordance. All open-ended responses were classified into six domains.
resultsWe observed 35 family discussions. Questions 1 to 3 inquiring on general satisfaction, impact, and understanding of treatment options yielded 99 cross-comparisons per question (297 compared responses). Most responses were either "Strongly Agree" or "Agree," with "Neutral" or "Disagree" responses being more prevalent in Question 2 regarding the impact of the conversation. Overall concordance of responses between participants was 88% with a lower rate of concordance (72%) on Q2. Further open-ended questions queried observers on specific physician-spoken content, and answers were analyzed to identify domains that affected the perception of quality of communication. Education was the most frequently cited domain of communication in response to open-ended questions. Among family and neutral observers, empathy was frequently listed, whereas providers more often listed family engagement.
conclusionOverall, satisfaction was high among providers, families, and the observer regarding the quality of communication during family discussions in the unit. Perceptual differences emerged over whether this communication impacted healthcare decision-making during that encounter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.