Information needs of Family Members of Critically Ill Patients in Intensive Care Unit of a Tertiary Hospital
Version 2 2025-01-15, 01:07Version 2 2025-01-15, 01:07
Version 1 2023-05-17, 11:51Version 1 2023-05-17, 11:51
journal contribution
posted on 2025-01-15, 01:07authored byAA Noor Siah, SE Ho, MZ Jafaar, YC Choy, S Das, SM Ismail, A Barnett
Background and Aims. The experience in intensive care unit (ICU) has created an intense emotional situation both to patients and their family members. The aim of this study was to determine the family members’ information needs of critically ill patients in ICU. Materials and Methods. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on 200 family members of patients admitted in ICU. A face to face interview was conducted and a self-report questionnaire of the Critical Care Family Needs Inventory (CCFNI) was used. Results. Findings reported CCFNI fi ve sub-attributes that ranked from highest to lowest included: support (mean 39.13±6.189); proximity (mean 27.17±3.384); information (mean 24.25±3.093); assurance (mean 22.67±1.862) and comfort (mean 16.24±2.776). There were no signifi cant differences in needs between family members with different gender (p >0.05). However, there were signifi cant differences in support needs between family members with admission to ICU with (t=-2.111; p <0.05). There were signifi cant differences in assurance needs (F=3.542; p <0.05) and information needs (F=3.681; p <0.05) between family members with age. There were no signifi cant differences in needs between family members with different education level (p >0.05) whereas assurance needs were signifi cant differences with education level of (F=3.542; p <0.05). Conclusion. The results suggest that family members perceived support and proximity as the most crucial need. Comfort need was viewed as least important. Although this study was conducted in a tertiary hospital, the fi ndings could still provide insight for nurses to improve the delivery of care to patients and family members. Clin Ter 2012; 163(1):63-67