Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,473

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004–2005

Davidson, Judy E., Powers, Karen, Hedayat, Kamyar M., Tieszen, Mark, Kon, Alexander A., Shepard, Eric, Spuhler, Vicki, Todres, I David, Levy, Mitchell, Barr, Juliana, Ghandi, Raj, Hirsch, Gregory, Armstrong, Deborah·2007·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical practice guidelines for the support of the patient and family in the adult, pediatric, or neonatal patient-centered ICU. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary task force of experts in critical care practice was convened from the membership of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to include representation from adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care units. EVIDENCE: The task force members reviewed the published literature. The Cochrane library, Cinahl, and MedLine were queried for articles published between 1980 and 2003. Studies were scored according to Cochrane methodology. Where evidence did not exist or was of a low level, consensus was derived from expert opinion. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The topic was divided into subheadings: decision making, family coping, staff stress related to family interactions, cultural support, spiritual/religious support, family visitation, family presence on rounds, family presence at resuscitation, family environment of care, and palliative care. Each section was led by one task force member. Each section draft was reviewed by the group and debated until consensus was achieved. The draft document was reviewed by a committee of the Board of Regents of the ACCM. After steering committee approval, the draft was approved by the SCCM Council and was again subjected to peer review by this journal. CONCLUSIONS: More than 300 related studies were reviewed. However, the level of evidence in most cases is at Cochrane level 4 or 5, indicating the need for further research. Forty-three recommendations are presented that include, but are not limited to, endorsement of a shared decision-making model, early and repeated care conferencing to reduce family stress and improve consistency in communication, honoring culturally appropriate requests for truth-telling and informed refusal, spiritual support, staff education and debriefing to minimize the impact of family interactions on staff health, family presence at both rounds and resuscitation, open flexible visitation, way-finding and family-friendly signage, and family support before, during, and after a death.

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 · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000254067.14607.eb

Cites

9 of 9 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

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

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 1,473

Metadata

Authors
Davidson, J. E., Powers, K., Hedayat, K. M., Tieszen, M., Kon, A. A., Shepard, E., Spuhler, V., Todres, I. D., Levy, M., Barr, J., Ghandi, R., Hirsch, G., & Armstrong, D.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2007-02
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
605-622
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028407151
Cited by
1,473
References
9
FWCI
108.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004–2005. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000254067.14607.eb
The paper
Davidson, J. E., Powers, K., Hedayat, K. M., Tieszen, M., Kon, A. A., Shepard, E., Spuhler, V., Todres, I. D., Levy, M., Barr, J., Ghandi, R., Hirsch, G., & Armstrong, D. (2007). Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004–2005. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000254067.14607.eb

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.