Search

Objectives: Being a caregiver for a patient in the ICU can place emotional burden on families and engaging families in caregiving can reduce psychological distress. Our goal was to observe support methods used by families in the ICU and identify differences between race/ethnicity., Design: A secondary analysis of a multicenter before-and-after clinical trial., Setting: Three hospitals in Chicago, Providence, and Florence, Italy., Participants: Family members of patients admitted to the ICU., Interventions: In the primary study, an intervention was designed to engage families in seven domains that were based on the five physical senses (taste, touch, sight, smell, and sound), personal care, and spiritual care of the patient. During the control phase, nursing staff observed and recorded if they witnessed families participating in support methods unprompted., Measurements and Main Results: We compared the use of support methods among families from different races, categorized by race as either White, Black, or other using generalized estimating equation population-averaged logistic regression analysis. A total of 133 patients and 226 family members were enrolled in the control arm of the primary study, with patients being 71.2% White, 17% Black, and 11.8% other. Compared with Whites, families who identified their race Black or other may be more likely to participate in support methods that included personal care, touch, or spiritual care. Families who identified as Black may also be more likely to incorporate audio or sound. There were no differences in the categories of sight, smell, or taste., Conclusions: Our study identifies racial differences in the use of bedside support methods in the ICU. Guiding families in a culturally congruent and open-minded manner may have the potential to decrease family distress and improve the experience for families in the ICU., Competing Interests: Dr. Amass’s institution received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (grant T32 HL134625). The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)