Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39982184›Full record

GuidelineCritical care medicine2025

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Family-Centered Care for Adult ICUs: 2024.

David Y Hwang, Simon J W Oczkowski, Kimberley Lewis, Barbara Birriel, James Downar, Christian E Farrier, Kirsten M Fiest, Rik T Gerritsen, Joanna Hart, Christiane S Hartog and 18 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Critical care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

28 authors.

David Y HwangUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Simon J W OczkowskiMcMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kimberley LewisMcMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Barbara BirrielThe Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
James DownarUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Christian E FarrierUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Kirsten M FiestUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Rik T GerritsenMedical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Joanna HartUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Christiane S HartogCharité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Gabriel Heras-La CalleInternational Research Project for the Humanization of Intensive Care Units (Proyecto HU-CI), Madrid, Spain.
Aluko A HopeOregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
Ann L JennerichUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Nancy Kentish-BarnesAP-HP Nord, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France.
Ruth KleinpellVanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Erin K KrossUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Andrea P MarshallGold Coast Health and Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Peter NydahlUniversity Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Theodora PetersBaltimore, MD.
Regis G RosaHospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Elizabeth ScruthKaiser Permanente Health Plan and Hospitals Northern California, Oakland, CA.
Nneka SederstromHennepin Healthcare, Minneapolis, MN.
Joanna L StollingsVanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Alison E TurnbullJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Thomas S ValleyUniversity of Michigan and Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Center, Ann Arbor, MI.
Giora NetzerUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Rebecca A AslaksonUniversity of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
Ramona O HopkinsBrigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Funding

HSRD VA I01 HX003789
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleFor staff in adult ICUs, providing family-centered care is an essential skill that affects important outcomes for both patients and families. The COVID-19 pandemic placed unprecedented strain on care of ICU families, and practices for family engagement and support are still adjusting.

objectivesTo review updated evidence for family support in adult ICUs, provide clear recommendations, and spotlight optimal family-centered care practices post-pandemic. PANEL

designThe multiprofessional guideline panel of 28 individuals, including family member partners, applied the processes described in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Standard Operating Procedures Manual to develop and publish evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection, writing, and voting.

methodsThe guidelines consist of four content sections: engagement of families, support of family needs, communication support, and support of ICU clinicians providing family-centered care. We conducted systematic reviews for 15 Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes questions, organized among these content sections, to identify the best available evidence. We summarized and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or conditional, or as best practice statements where appropriate. The recommendations were approved using an online vote requiring greater than 80% agreement of voting panel members to pass.

resultsOur panel issued 17 statements related to optimal family-centered care in adult ICUs, including one strong recommendation, 14 conditional recommendations, and two best practice statements. We reaffirmed the critical importance of liberalized family presence policies as default practice when possible and suggested options for family attendance on rounds and participation in bedside care. We suggested that ICUs provide support for families in the form of educational programs; ICU diaries; and mental health, bereavement, and spiritual support. We suggested the importance of providing structured communication for families and communication training for clinicians but did not recommend for or against any specific clinician-facing tools for family support or decision aids, based on current available evidence. We recommended that adult ICUs implement practices to systematically identify and reduce barriers to equitable critical care delivery for families and suggested that programs designed to support the wellbeing of clinicians responsible for family support be developed.

conclusionsOur guideline panel achieved consensus regarding recommendations and best practices for family-centered care in adult ICUs.

Indexed as

COVID-19Critical CareFamilyIntensive Care UnitsAdultHumansPatient-Centered CareProfessional-Family RelationsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID39982184
PMCPMC13537439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.