Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41461400›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Insights from critical care clinicians, patients and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds about end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a scoping review.

Krishnaswamy Sundararajan, Safwan Aziz, Natalie Anderson, Raechel A Damarell, Eamon Raith, Caroline Phelan, Ashwin Subramaniam

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Krishnaswamy SundararajanDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia krishnaswamy.sundararajan@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3377-6062
Safwan AzizMonash University - Clayton Campus, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-2446-8910
Natalie AndersonSchool of Nursing, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6852-1660
Raechel A DamarellResearch Centre for Palliative Care, Death and Dying, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6737-7537
Eamon RaithDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7060-2283
Caroline PhelanResearch Centre of Palliative Care, Death and Dying, Flinders University College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3036-6209
Ashwin SubramaniamDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Dandenong Hospital, Dandenong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8292-7357

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients and families from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds face distinct challenges during end-of-life care (EOLC) in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, where communication, cultural expectations and decision-making may conflict with clinical norms. These complexities have important implications for intensive and palliative care teams.

objectivesTo map literature on clinician, patient and family perspectives on end-of-life communication with CALD populations in ICUs, and identify barriers and facilitators to culturally responsive care.

designThis scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework and published in BMJ Open. Screening, review and data extraction were conducted by multiple reviewers using Covidence and the Joanna Briggs Institute tool, with findings synthesised through inductive thematic analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was to identify barriers and facilitators to communication between clinicians, patients and families from CALD backgrounds during EOLC. Secondary outcomes were to map the scope of evidence, describe study characteristics and participant demographics, and summarise themes on cultural sensitivity, clinician awareness, family involvement, decision-making and integration of support services.

resultsThirty of 766 screened studies were included. Three themes emerged: communication challenges; cultural sensitivity and humility and decision-making and support. Barriers included limited access to palliative care, language discordance, underuse of interpreters, clinician discomfort and conflicting care expectations. Facilitators included structured meetings, inclusive practices and interdisciplinary collaboration.

conclusionsStructural, communicative and cultural barriers undermine equitable EOLC for CALD patients. Embedding palliative care principles, cultural responsiveness and shared decision-making into ICU practice requires coordinated input from a multidisciplinary team involving physicians, nurses, social workers, spiritual care, psychologists and interpreters. System-level reforms in training, service delivery and research are needed to ensure person-centred care. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Registered with BMJ Open DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-090168.

Indexed as

Critical CareCultural DiversityFamilyIntensive Care UnitsTerminal CareCommunicationCommunication BarriersCulturally Competent CareDecision MakingHumansProfessional-Family RelationsAdult intensive & critical careAdult palliative careIntensive Care UnitsNursing Care

Identifiers

PMID41461400
PMCPMC12750795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.