Cited by 141Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsInfant Development and Preterm CareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Impact of Family Presence During Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Rounds on the Family and Medical Team

Aronson, Paul L., Yau, Jennifer, Helfaer, Mark A., Morrison, Wynne·2009·Pediatrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to determine the impact of family presence during PICU rounds on family satisfaction, resident teaching, and length of rounds and to assess factors associated with family satisfaction. METHODS: This was an observational study of a convenience sample of morning work rounds in a PICU, followed by surveys of family members of patients in the unit and residents who had been present for rounds. RESULTS: A total of 411 patient encounters were observed, 98 family questionnaires were fully completed, and 33 resident questionnaires were completed. Ninety-eight percent of family members liked to be present for rounds. On the first day of admission, family members were less likely to understand the plan (P = .03), to feel comfortable asking questions (P = .007), or to want bad news during rounds (P = .009). They were more likely to have privacy concerns (P = .02) and to want 1 individual to convey the plan after rounds (P = .01). Higher education level was associated with decreased privacy concerns (P = .002) but did not affect understanding of the plan. Fifty-two percent of residents perceived that teaching was decreased with families present. Time spent with individual patients was not increased by family member presence (P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Family satisfaction is high, but families of patients on the first day of admission may need special attention. The medical team should conduct rounds in a manner that addresses the privacy concerns of families. Residents often think that teaching is decreased when families are present.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2009-0369

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 141

Authors
Aronson, P. L., Yau, J., Helfaer, M. A., & Morrison, W.
Affiliations
  • Departments of Pediatrics
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2009-10-01
Volume
124
Issue
4
Pages
1119-1125
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2132272991
Cited by
141
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 16
FWCI
17.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
family presence, family satisfaction, resident teaching, breaking bad news, household education, physician-family communication
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Child, Child, Preschool, Clinical Competence, Critical Care, Education, Medical, Graduate, Family, Female, Hospitals, Pediatric, Humans, Infant, Internship and Residency, Male, Patient Care Team, Pennsylvania, Personal Satisfaction, Professional-Family Relations, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Intensive Care Units, Pediatric, Confidence Intervals, Odds Ratio

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