Characteristics of Family Conferences at the Bedside Versus the Conference Room in Pediatric Critical Care
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE:: To compare characteristics of family conferences at the bedside vs. the conference room in the PICU. DESIGN:: Single-site, cohort survey study. SETTING:: Thirty-three bed academic PICU in an urban setting. PARTICIPANTS:: Ten (90.9%) PICU physicians providing care to 29 patients whose families participated in 58 family conferences. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: Family conferences, defined as a meeting involving the parent(s) of a PICU patient and the critical care attending physician to discuss a treatment decision, redirection of care from curative to palliative, or deliver bad news, occurred most commonly among families of the sickest patients. Conferences were conducted at the bedside 20 of 58 (33%) of the time. Although physicians stated a general preference to discuss withdrawal or withholding care in the conference room, there was no difference in location during actual conferences. Physicians preferred the bedside when they wanted the patient to participate (p = 0.01) or because it was perceived to be easier (p < 0.0005) or faster (p = 0.016) to conduct, while the conference room was preferred when additional space was needed (p < 0.0005). Family conferences at the bedside were less likely to include a social worker (p < 0.0005), consultant physicians (p = 0.043), or father of the patient (p = 0.006) as compared with conferences in a conference room. Family conferences convened to discuss a treatment were followed by a decision within 24 hrs (42% of the time) and a change in code status (32% of the time). In 32 of 58 (55%) family conferences, the attending physician did not have a prior relationship with the family. CONCLUSION:: Family conferences in the PICU are common both at the bedside and in conference rooms in a subpopulation of the most critically ill children and frequently result in a treatment decision or change in code status.
- Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 03/2013; 14(3):334-5. DOI:10.1097/PCC.0b013e31827d1649 · 2.33 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Data about pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) family conferences (FCs) are needed to enhance our understanding of the role of FCs in patient care and build a foundation for future research on PICU communication and decision making. Objective: The study's objective was to describe the use and content of PICU FCs. Design: The study design was a prospective chart review comparing patients who had conferences with those who did not, and a sub-analysis of patients with chronic care conditions (CCCs). Setting/subjects: The study setting was an academic PICU from January 2011 through June 2011. Measurements: Medical events under consideration were placement of tracheostomy or gastrostomy tube; initiation of chronic ventilation; palliative care involvement; use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation; care limitation orders; death; length of stay; and discharge to a new environment. Results: From 661 admissions, we identified 74 conferences involving 49 patients. Sixty-four conferences (86%) were held about 40 patients with CCCs. Having a conference was associated with (p<0.05): length of PICU admission; palliative care involvement; initiation of chronic ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; death; discharge to a new environment; and care limitation orders. Twenty-nine percent of patients who had a new tracheostomy or gastrostomy tube placed had a conference. We identified two categories of discussion topics: information exchange and future management. Conclusions: Most identified FCs involved complex patients or patients who faced decisions affecting the child's quality of life or dying. For many patients who faced life changing decisions we did not identify a FC. Further research is needed to understand how to best utilize FCs and less formal conversations.Journal of palliative medicine 10/2013; 16(12). DOI:10.1089/jpm.2013.0284 · 2.06 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To identify factors important to parents making decisions for their critically ill child. Prospective cross-sectional study. Single center, tertiary care PICU. Parents making critical treatment decisions for their child. One-on-one interviews that used the Good Parent Tool-2 open-ended question that asks parents to describe factors important for parenting their ill child and how clinicians could help them achieve their definition of "being a good parent" to their child. Parent responses were analyzed thematically. Parents also ranked themes in order of importance to them using the Good Parent Ranking Exercise. Of 53 eligible parents, 43 (81%) participated. We identified nine themes through content analysis of the parent's narrative statements from the Good Parent Tool. Most commonly (60% of quotes) components of being a good parent described by parents included focusing on their child's quality of life, advocating for their child with the medical team, and putting their child's needs above their own. Themes key to parental decision making were similar regardless of parent race and socioeconomic status or child's clinical status. We identified nine clinician strategies identified by parents as helping them fulfill their parenting role, most commonly, parents wanted to be kept informed (32% of quotes). Using the Good Parent Ranking Exercise, fathers ranked making informed medical decisions as most important, whereas mothers ranked focusing on the child's health and putting their child's needs above their own as most important. However, mothers who were not part of a couple ranked making informed medical decisions as most important. These findings suggest a range of themes important for parents to "be a good parent" to their child while making critical decisions. Further studies need to explore whether clinician's knowledge of the parent's most valued factor can improve family-centered care.Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 02/2014; 15(4). DOI:10.1097/PCC.0000000000000076 · 2.33 Impact Factor