4.2 Article

A follow-up meeting post death is appreciated by family members of deceased patients

Journal

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 58, Issue 7, Pages 891-896

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12358

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A practice with a follow-up meeting post death (FUMPD) with physician and staff for family members of patients who died in the intensive care unit (ICU) was started as a quality project to improve the support of families in post-ICU bereavement. A quality improvement control was conducted after 4 years. Method: The quality improvement control was made retrospectively as an anonymous non-coded questionnaire. Part A related to the FUMPD. Part B inquired if we could contact the family member again for a research project to evaluate family support post-ICU bereavement. The questionnaires were sent to 84 family members of 56 deceased patients. Results: Part A: 46 out of 84 family members answered and had attended a FUMPD. Ninety-one percent of the family members thought that we should continue to offer FUMPD. Seventy-eight percent were satisfied with their meeting. Eighty percent felt that they understood the cause of death. The majority wanted the meeting to take place within 6 weeks of death. Ninety-one percent rated the physician as important to be present at the meeting. The social worker was rated more important to attend the meeting than the assistant nurse. Ninety-one percent wanted to discuss the cause of death. Part B: 54 out of 84 family members answered. Twenty out of 54 did not want us to contact them again. Conclusion: A routine with a Follow-Up Meeting Post Death with the ICU team for the families of the patients who die in the ICU is appreciated. The presence of the physician is important. (C) 2014 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available