Premium
Defining the needs of ICU patient families in a suburban/rural Greek population: a prospective cohort study
Author(s) -
Chatzaki Maria,
Klimathianaki Maria,
Anastasaki Maria,
Chatzakis Georgios,
Apostolakou Eleni,
Georgopoulos Dimitrios
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of clinical nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.94
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1365-2702
pISSN - 0962-1067
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.04022.x
Subject(s) - medicine , intensive care unit , population , scale (ratio) , family medicine , intensive care , cohort , unit (ring theory) , prospective cohort study , cohort study , nursing , psychology , psychiatry , environmental health , intensive care medicine , geography , mathematics education , cartography , surgery , pathology
Aim. To define the needs of intensive care unit patients’ families in the specific suburban/rural population of Crete Island. Background. Families of intensive care unit patients have specific needs that should also be addressed by the intensive care unit‐care team. Current research has mostly concentrated on families from an urban setting, therefore may not be applicable to other populations. Design. Prospective cohort study. Methods. Family members of patients admitted in the intensive care unit for ≥48 hours over 18 months, in a mixed medical‐surgical, 11 bed closed intensive care unit. Questionnaire: The Greek translation of Critical Care Family Need Inventory, which consists of 45 need items covering the information, reassurance, proximity, support and comfort domains. Each item was scored on a four‐point scale (1 = very important to 4 = not important). Participants were also asked to single out the most important need from the Critical Care Family Need Inventory and complete a questionnaire on basic demographic characteristics. Results. Two hundred and thirty (65%) family members completed the questionnaire. Mean score for each of the 45 items ranged from 1·03–3 (scale from 1: very important–4: not important). Fourteen items were rated by responders as very important (mean score <1·25). Reassurance need items were consistently singled out as most important regardless of the participant’s background. Participants with a lower educational and socio‐economical status rated support need items as more important than those with a higher status. Conclusion. In this particular suburban/rural population, both ‘universal’ reassurance needs and specific support needs related to responders’ educational or socio‐economical background were identified. Relevance to clinical practice. Enhanced recognition of these needs may improve quality of care offered by intensive care unit‐care team to families of their patients.