Cited by 524Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics in medical practice

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Randomized Trial of a Family-Support Intervention in Intensive Care Units

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surrogate decision makers for incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle with decisions related to goals of care. Such decisions cause psychological distress in surrogates and may lead to treatment that does not align with patients' preferences. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial involving patients with a high risk of death and their surrogates in five intensive care units (ICUs) to compare a multicomponent family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team with usual care. The primary outcome was the surrogates' mean score on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 6 months (scores range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms). Prespecified secondary outcomes were the surrogates' mean scores on the Impact of Event Scale (IES; scores range from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), the Quality of Communication (QOC) scale (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better clinician-family communication), and a modified Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness (PPPC) scale (scores range from 1 to 4, with lower scores indicating more patient- and family-centered care), as well as the mean length of ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 1420 patients were enrolled in the trial. There was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group in the surrogates' mean HADS score at 6 months (11.7 and 12.0, respectively; beta coefficient, -0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.67 to 0.99; P=0.61) or mean IES score (21.2 and 20.3; beta coefficient, 0.90; 95% CI, -1.66 to 3.47; P=0.49). The surrogates' mean QOC score was better in the intervention group than in the control group (69.1 vs. 62.7; beta coefficient, 6.39; 95% CI, 2.57 to 10.20; P=0.001), as was the mean modified PPPC score (1.7 vs. 1.8; beta coefficient, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.04; P=0.006). The mean length of stay in the ICU was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (6.7 days vs. 7.4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.00; P=0.045), a finding mediated by the shortened mean length of stay in the ICU among patients who died (4.4 days vs. 6.8 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.78; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients and their surrogates, a family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team did not significantly affect the surrogates' burden of psychological symptoms, but the surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication and the patient- and family-centeredness of care were better and the length of stay in the ICU was shorter with the intervention than with usual care. (Funded by the UPMC Health System and the Greenwall Foundation; PARTNER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844492 .).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1802637

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.1001/jama.1995.03530200027032 · DOI
  2. Committee on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future of Nursing at the Institute of Medicine. The future of nursing: leading change advancing health. Washington DC: National Academies Press 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 523

Metadata

Authors
White, D. B., Angus, D. C., Shields, A.-M., Buddadhumaruk, P., Pidro, C., Paner, C., Chaitin, E., Chang, C.-C. H., Pike, F., Weissfeld, L., Kahn, J. M., Darby, J. M., Kowinsky, A., Martin, S., & Arnold, R. M.
Affiliations
  • From the Program on Ethics and Decision Making in Critical Illness (D.B.W., A.-M.S., P.B.), Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center (D.B.W., D.C.A., A.-M.S., P.B., C. Pidro, C.-C.H.C., J.M.K.), Department of Critical Care Medicine (D.B.W., D.C.A., A.-M.S., P.B., C. Pidro, C.-C.H.C., J.M.K., J.M.D.), and the Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Division of General Internal Medicine (R.M.A.), Department of Medicine (C.-C.H.C., R.M.A.), University of...
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • Statistics Collaborative (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2018-06-21
Volume
378
Issue
25
Pages
2365-2375
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2804920713
Cited by
524
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 13
FWCI
70.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • The Greenwall Foundation (n/a)
  • UPMC Innovation Fund (n/a)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
Keywords
family support interventions, surrogate decision makers, intensive care unit, goals of care, clinician-family communication, patient-centered care, anxiety and depression, psychological distress, multidisciplinary team, family-centered care, ICU length of stay, end-of-life decisions, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
MeSH terms
Aged, Anxiety, Communication, Critical Care, Decision Making, Depression, Family, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Professional-Family Relations, Stress, Psychological, Critical Illness, Caregivers, Hospital Mortality, Third-Party Consent, Critical Care Nursing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review