Nancy Kentish-Barnes

Burnout syndrome among critical care healthcare workers

Purpose of reviewBurnout syndrome is a psychological state resulting from prolonged exposure to job stressors. Because ICUs are characterized by a high level of work-related stress, a factor known to increase the risk of burnout syndrome, we sought to review the available literature on burnout syndrome in ICU healthcare workers. Recent findingsBased on most recent studies, severe burnout syndrome (as measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory) is present in about 50% of critical care physicians and in one third of critical care nurses. Strikingly, determinants of burnout syndrome are different in the two groups of caregivers. Namely, intensivists who have severe burnout syndrome are those with a high number of working hours (number of night shifts and time from last vacation) but determinants of severe burnout syndrome in ICU-nurses are related to ICU organization and end-of-life-related characteristics. ICU conflicts, however, were independent predictors of severe burnout syndrome in both groups. SummaryRecent studies reported high levels of severe burnout syndrome in ICU healthcare workers and identified potential targets for preventive strategies such as ICU working groups, communication strategies during end-of-life care and prevention and management of ICU conflicts.

Guidelines for Family-Centered Care in the Neonatal, Pediatric, and Adult ICU.

Objective: To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU. Methods: We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We assembled an international multidisciplinary team of 29 members with expertise in guideline development, evidence analysis, and family-centered care to revise the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered ICU. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative research that explored family-centered care in the ICU. Thematic analyses were conducted to support Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. Patients and families validated the importance of interventions and outcomes. We then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to make recommendations for practice. Recommendations were subjected to electronic voting with pre-established voting thresholds. No industry funding was associated with the guideline development. Results: The scoping review yielded 683 qualitative studies; 228 were used for thematic analysis and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. The systematic review search yielded 4,158 reports after deduplication and 76 additional studies were added from alerts and hand searches; 238 studies met inclusion criteria. We made 23 recommendations from moderate, low, and very low level of evidence on the topics of: communication with family members, family presence, family support, consultations and ICU team members, and operational and environmental issues. We provide recommendations for future research and work-tools to support translation of the recommendations into practice. Conclusions: These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

Assessing burden in families of critical care patients.

Objective:To provide critical care clinicians with information on validated instruments for assessing burden in families of critical care patients. Data Sources:PubMed (1979–2009). Study Selection:We included all quantitative studies that used a validated instrument to evaluate the prevalence of, and risk factors for, burden on families. Data Extraction and Synthesis:We extracted the descriptions of the instruments used and the main results. Family burden after critical illness can be detected reliably and requires preventive strategies and specific treatments. Using simple face-to-face interviews, intensivists can learn to detect poor comprehension and its determinants. Instruments for detecting symptoms of anxiety, depression, or stress can be used reliably even by physicians with no psychiatric training. For some symptoms, the evaluation should take place at a distance from intensive care unit discharge or death. Experience with families of patients who died in the intensive care unit and data from the literature have prompted studies of bereaved family members and the development of interventions aimed at decreasing guilt and preventing complicated grief. Conclusions:We believe that burden on families should be assessed routinely. In clinical studies, using markers for burden measured by validated tools may provide further evidence that effective communication and efforts to detect and to prevent symptoms of stress, anxiety, or depression provide valuable benefits to families.

Important questions asked by family members of intensive care unit patients.

Objectives: Relatives often lack important information about intensive care unit patients. High-quality information is crucial to help relatives overcome the often considerable situational stress and to acquire the ability to participate in the decision-making process, most notably regarding the appropriate level of care. We aimed to develop a list of questions important for relatives of patients in the intensive care unit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter study. Questions asked by relatives of intensive care unit patients were collected from five different sources (literature, panel of 28 intensive care unit nurses and physicians, 1-wk survey of nurses and 1-wk survey of physicians in 14 intensive care units, and in-depth interviews with 14 families). After a qualitative analysis (framework approach and thematic analysis), questions were rated by 22 relatives and 14 intensive care unit physicians, and the ratings were analyzed using principal component analysis and hierarchical clustering. Results: The five sources produced 2,135 questions. Removal of duplicates and redundancies left 443 questions, which were distributed among nine predefined domains using a framework approach (“diagnosis,” “treatment,” “prognosis,” “comfort,” “interaction,” “communication,” “family,” “end of life,” and “postintensive care unit management”). Thematic analysis in each domain led to the identification of 46 themes, which were reworded as 46 different questions. Ratings by relatives and physicians showed that 21 of these questions were particularly important for relatives of intensive care unit patients. Conclusion: This study increases knowledge about the informational needs of relatives of intensive care unit patients. This list of questions may prove valuable for both relatives and intensive care unit physicians as a tool for improving communication in the intensive care unit.

Complicated grief after death of a relative in the intensive care unit

An increased proportion of deaths occur in the intensive care unit (ICU). We performed this prospective study in 41 ICUs to determine the prevalence and determinants of complicated grief after death of a loved one in the ICU. Relatives of 475 adult patients were followed up. Complicated grief was assessed at 6 and 12 months using the Inventory of Complicated Grief (cut-off score >25). Relatives also completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 3 months, and the Revised Impact of Event Scale for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 3, 6 and 12 months. We used a mixed multivariate logistic regression model to identify determinants of complicated grief after 6 months. Among the 475 patients, 282 (59.4%) had a relative evaluated at 6 months. Complicated grief symptoms were identified in 147 (52%) relatives. Independent determinants of complicated grief symptoms were either not amenable to changes (relative of female sex, relative living alone and intensivist board certification before 2009) or potential targets for improvements (refusal of treatment by the patient, patient died while intubated, relatives present at the time of death, relatives did not say goodbye to the patient, and poor communication between physicians and relatives). End-of-life practices, communication and loneliness in bereaved relatives may be amenable to improvements. End-of-life care and communication in the ICU are associated with the prevalence of complicated grief http://ow.ly/DCqjB

Involvement of ICU families in decisions: fine-tuning the partnership

Families of patients are not simple visitors to the ICU. They have just been separated from a loved one, often someone they live with, either abruptly or, in nearly half the cases, because a chronic condition has suddenly worsened. They must cope with a serious illness of a loved one, while having to adapt to the unfamiliar and intimidating ICU environment. In many cases, the outcome of the critical illness is uncertain, a situation that causes considerable distress to the relatives. As shown by our research group and others, families exhibit symptoms of anxiety (70%) and depression (35%) in the first few days after admission, as well as symptoms of stress (33%) and difficulty understanding the information delivered by the healthcare staff (50%). Furthermore, relatives of patients who die in the ICU are at risk for psychiatric syndromes such as generalized anxiety, panic attacks, depression, and posttraumatic stress syndrome. In this setting of psychological distress, families are asked to consider sharing in healthcare decisions about their loved one in the ICU. This article aims to foster the debate about the shared decision-making process. We have three objectives: to transcend the overly simplistic position that opposes paternalism and autonomy, to build a view founded only on an evaluation of actual practice and experience in the field, and to keep the focus squarely on the patient. Families want information and communication time from the staff. Nurses and physicians need to understand that families can share in decisions only if the entire ICU staff actively promotes family involvement and, of course, if the family wants to participate in all or part of the decision-making process.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Family Members of Intensive Care Unit Patients

OBJECTIVE The intensive care unit (ICU) experience has been reported to cause adverse health effects in families during and after the ICU stay. The objective of this study was to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in relatives of patients 90 days after ICU discharge or death. DESIGN Multicenter observational study. SETTING Twenty-one ICUs in France. PARTICIPANTS Among 459 eligible relatives of ICU patients, 284 (62%) were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS During a telephone interview, the SF-36 was completed to assess HRQOL 90 days after ICU discharge or death. The physical component summary score of the SF-36 was normal (89/100 [66-94]) but the mental component summary score showed substantial impairments (emotional role, 67 [50-80]; social functioning, 70 [60-90]; vitality, 60 [45-70]; and mental health, 60 [48-2]). Moreover, 35.9% of relatives were taking anxiolytic or antidepressant drugs, and 8.4% were taking psychotropic agents prescribed since the discharge or death of the patient. Among factors independently associated with a worse mental score, 2 were patient-related (admission for shock or implementation of end-of-life decision), 6 were family-related (older age, female gender, child of the patient, low income, chronic disease, and newly prescribed psychotropic medications), and 1 was related to the ICU experience (perceived conflicts between ICU staff and relatives). CONCLUSIONS The SF-36 showed evidence of impaired mental health in relatives of ICU patients 90 days after discharge. Better end-of-life care, psychiatric support after the ICU experience, and better conflict prevention and resolution are potential targets for improvement.

Contribution of the ethics committee of the French Intensive Care Society to describing a scenario for implementing organ donation after Maastricht type III cardiocirculatory death in France

French law allows organ donation after death due to cardiocirculatory arrest. In the Maastricht classification, type III non-heart-beating donors are those who experience cardiocirculatory arrest after the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments. French authorities in charge of regulating organ donation (Agence de la Biomédecine, ABM) are considering organ collection from Maastricht type III donors. We describe a scenario for Maastricht type III organ donation that fully complies with the ethical norms governing care to dying patients. That organ donation may occur after death should have no impact on the care given to the patient and family. The dead-donor rule must be followed scrupulously: the organ retrieval procedure must neither cause nor hasten death. The decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments, withdrawal modalities, and care provided to the patient and family must adhere strictly to the requirements set forth in patient-rights legislation (the 2005 Léonetti law in France) and should not be influenced in any way by the possibility of organ donation. A major ethical issue regarding the family is how best to transition from discussing treatment-withdrawal decisions to discussing possible organ retrieval for donation should the patient die rapidly after treatment withdrawal. Close cooperation between the healthcare team and the organ retrieval team is crucial to minimize the distress of family members during this transition. Modalities for implementing Maastricht type III organ donation are discussed here, including the best location for withdrawing life-sustaining treatments (operating room or intensive care unit).

Family Presence during Resuscitation: A Qualitative Analysis from a National Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

Background The themes of qualitative assessments that characterize the experience of family members offered the choice of observing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) of a loved one have not been formally identified. Methods and Findings In the context of a multicenter randomized clinical trial offering family members the choice of observing CPR of a patient with sudden cardiac arrest, a qualitative analysis, with a sequential explanatory design, was conducted. The aim of the study was to understand family members’ experience during CPR. All participants were interviewed by phone at home three months after cardiac arrest. Saturation was reached after analysis of 30 interviews of a randomly selected sample of 75 family members included in the trial. Four themes were identified: 1- choosing to be actively involved in the resuscitation; 2- communication between the relative and the emergency care team; 3- perception of the reality of the death, promoting acceptance of the loss; 4- experience and reactions of the relatives who did or did not witness the CPR, describing their feelings. Twelve sub-themes further defining these four themes were identified. Transferability of our findings should take into account the country-specific medical system. Conclusions Family presence can help to ameliorate the pain of the death, through the feeling of having helped to support the patient during the passage from life to death and of having participated in this important moment. Our results showed the central role of communication between the family and the emergency care team in facilitating the acceptance of the reality of death.

Research Participation for Bereaved Family Members: Experience and Insights From a Qualitative Study.

Background:Research has highlighted potential negative health outcomes for bereaved family members after loss of a loved one in the ICU and has helped identify areas for intervention. The findings exist because these family members agreed to participate in research studies; but little is known about their experience of research participation. Objective:To understand why family members participate in bereavement research and the benefits of participating in such research. Design:Qualitative study using interviews with bereaved family members as well as letters written by bereaved family members. Setting:Forty-one ICUs in France. Subjects:Family members who lost a loved one in the ICU. Measurements and Main Results:Thematic analysis was used and was based on 54 narratives, 52 letters, and written annotations on 150 questionnaires. Regarding reasons to participate and benefits of research participation, 6 themes emerged: 1) to say thank you to the ICU team, 2) to help other bereaved family members, 3) to express myself from a distance, 4) to not feel abandoned, 5) to share difficult emotions and to help make meaning of the death, and 6) to receive support and care. Conclusion:Bereavement research is possible after loss of a loved one in the ICU and may even be beneficial for family members. Exploring families’ experiences of research participation helps define specific family needs in this setting. After the loss of a loved one in the ICU, bereaved families need opportunities to voice their feelings about their experience in the ICU and to give meaning to the end-of-life process; families also need to feel that they are still cared for. Support for the family may need to be developed after loss of a loved one in the ICU in the form of condolence letters, phone calls, or postintensive care meetings.