An integrated framework for effective and efficient communication with families in the adult Intensive Care unit
Open accessAbstract
The increased focus on patient and family-centered care in adult intensive care units (ICUs) has generated multiple platforms for clinician-family communication beyond traditional interdisciplinary family meetings (family meetings)-including family-centered rounds, bedside or telephone updates, and electronic family portals. Some clinicians and administrators are now using these platforms instead of conducting family meetings. For example, some institutions are moving toward using family-centered rounds as the main platform for clinician-family communication, and some physicians rely on brief daily updates to the family at the bedside or by phone, in lieu of family meetings. We argue that although each of these platforms is useful in some circumstances, there remains an important role for family meetings. We outline five goals of clinician-family communication-establishing trust, providing emotional support, conveying clinical information, understanding the patient as a person, and facilitating careful decision making-and we examine the extent to which various communication platforms are likely to achieve the goals. We argue that because no single platform can achieve all communication goals, an integrated strategy is needed. We present a model that integrates multiple communication platforms to effectively and efficiently support families across the arc of an ICU stay. Our framework employs bedside/telephone conversations and family-centered rounds throughout the admission to address high informational needs, along with well-timed family meetings that attend to families' emotions as well as patients' values and goals. This flexible model uses various communication platforms to achieve consistent, efficient communication throughout the ICU stay.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Goals-of-care discussions are an important process measure in palliative care research and likely mediate the delivery of patient-centered, goal-concordant care.
“Goals-of-care discussions are an important process measure in palliative care research, and likely mediate the delivery of patient-centered, goal-concordant care.6–8”
From Assessment of a Zero-Shot Large Language Model in Measuring Documented Goals-of-Care Discussions (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
In the discussion of interdisciplinary family meetings (section labeled Abstract; page unavailable), the paper says these meetings help families consider whether treatment options align with patients’ preferences and values. That supports the proposed link between goals-of-care discussions and goal-concordant care. It does not describe such discussions as a process measure in palliative care research. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 76
- Authors
- Seaman, J. B., Arnold, R. M., Scheunemann, L. P., & White, D. B.
- Affiliations
- Program on Ethics and Decision Making, Department of Critical Care Medicine, and
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Seaman, Jennifer B.
- Venue
- Annals of the American Thoracic Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-06-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1015-1020
- ISSN
- 2325-6621 (ISSN-L)
- 2329-6933
- PMC
- PMC5566311
- OpenAlex
- W2594712960
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7
- FWCI
- 10.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Annals of the American Thoracic Society (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01ag045176-05)
- National Institute on Aging (R01-AG045176, P30AG024827)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007820)
- National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR014663)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › 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
- clinician-family communication, family meetings, family-centered rounds, family-centered care, adult intensive care unit, communication platforms, emotional support, shared decision-making, patient values and goals, trust
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Communication, Decision Making, Family, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Professional-Family Relations, Patient-Centered Care
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