Protocol and Fidelity Monitoring Plan for Four Supports. A Multicenter Trial of an Intervention to Support Surrogate Decision Makers in Intensive Care Units
Open accessAbstract
Individuals acting as surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients frequently struggle in this role and experience high levels of long-term psychological distress. Prior interventions designed to improve the sharing of information by the clinical team with surrogate decision makers have demonstrated little effect on surrogates’ outcomes or clinical decisions. In this report, we describe the study protocol and corresponding intervention fidelity monitoring plan for a multicenter randomized clinical trial testing the impact of a multifaceted surrogate support intervention (Four Supports) on surrogates’ psychological distress, the quality of decisions about goals of care, and healthcare use. We will randomize the surrogates of 300 incapacitated critically ill patients at high risk of death and/or severe long-term functional impairment to receive the Four Supports intervention or an education control. The Four Supports intervention adds to the intensive care unit (ICU) team a trained interventionist (family support specialist) who delivers four types of protocolized support—emotional support; communication support; decisional support; and, if indicated, anticipatory grief support—to surrogates through daily interactions during the ICU stay. The primary outcome is surrogates’ symptoms of anxiety and depression at 6-month follow-up, measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Prespecified secondary outcome measures are the Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness Scale (modified for use with surrogates) and Impact of Event Scale scores at 3- and 6-month follow-up, respectively, together with ICU and hospital lengths of stay and total hospital cost among decedents. The fidelity monitoring plan entails establishing and measuring adherence to the intervention using multiple measurement methods, including daily checklists and coding of audiorecorded encounters. This approach to intervention fidelity may benefit others designing and testing behavioral interventions in the ICU setting. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01982877).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A multicomponent, nurse-led intervention designed to reduce depression, anxiety, and PTSD focused on emotional, communication, decisional, and anticipatory grief support for ICU family caregivers but did not utilize targeted strategies to reduce clinical symptoms.
“Finally, a multicomponent, nurse-led intervention designed to reduce depression, anxiety, and PTSD focused on the provision of emotional, communication, decisional, and anticipatory grief support for ICU family caregivers, but did not utilize targeted strategies to reduce clinical symptoms [9, 10].”
The investigative team specifically noted that the interventionists did not have advanced training in patient counseling.
“In fact, the investigative team specifically noted that the interventionists did not have advanced training in patient counseling [9], and, similar to other trials, the results showed no significant effects on the primary mental health outcomes of anxiety or depression, or on secondary outcomes of PTSD [11].”
Previous trials led by ICU and palliative care clinicians have proven inefficacious in improving mental health outcomes in informal caregivers.
“Previous trials led by ICU and palliative care clinicians have proven inefficacious in improving mental health outcomes in informal caregivers [5–11].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 22
- Authors
- Seaman, J. B., Arnold, R. M., Buddadhumaruk, P., Shields, A.-M., Gustafson, R. M., Felman, K., Newdick, W., SanPedro, R., Mackenzie, S., Morse, J. Q., Chang, C.-C. H., Happ, M. B., Song, M.-K., Kahn, J. M., Reynolds, C. F., Angus, D. C., Landefeld, S., & White, D. B.
- Affiliations
- Department of Acute and Tertiary Care, School of Nursing
- UPMC Health System (US)
- CRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine
- Rush University (US)
- St. Joseph Health System (US)
- Chatham University (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Emory University (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- Corresponding author
- White, Douglas B.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Annals of the American Thoracic Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-09-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1083-1091
- ISSN
- 2325-6621 (ISSN-L)
- 2329-6933
- PMC
- PMC6322040
- OpenAlex
- W2887115381
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 1.43
- 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)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007820)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Keywords
- surrogate decision makers, anxiety and depression, goals of care, intensive care unit, critically ill patients, anticipatory grief, family communication, patient-centeredness, hospital costs, length of hospital stay
- MeSH terms
- Anxiety, Communication, Decision Making, Depression, Family, Grief, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Professional-Family Relations, Social Support, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Critical Illness, Hospital Costs, Proxy
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