Implementation of a research awareness program in the critical care unit: effects on families and clinicians

Dale, Craig; Fowler, Robert A.; Adhikari, Neill K.J.; Pinto, Ruxandra; Rose, Louise

doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2009.09.003

« Previous Next »Intensive and Critical Care Nursing
Volume 26, Issue 2 , Pages 69-74, April 2010

Implementation of a research awareness program in the critical care unit: effects on families and clinicians☆

Craig Dale
- Trauma, Emergency and Critical Care Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, B508 – 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 416 480 6100x6095.
Robert A. Fowler
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, D478-2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5
Neill K.J. Adhikari
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, D108-2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5
Ruxandra Pinto
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, C824-2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5
Louise Rose
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, #276-155 College Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5T 1P8

Accepted 19 September 2009.

Summary

Background

Successful conduct of research studies in the critically ill requires communication with families, substitute decision-makers and clinicians.

Objective

To assess the effect of a communication package on attitude, knowledge and research awareness among family members and clinicians.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, single centre, before and after study. We distributed a validated questionnaire to family members and clinicians assessing the three domains of research attitude, knowledge and awareness before and after implementation of a research communication package consisting of an informational pamphlet and display poster.

Results

Response rates for the family member survey were 22% (baseline) and 15% (post-intervention). No differences were found in the attitude, knowledge and awareness of family members following implementation of the research communication package. The global awareness score (calculated by summing the domain responses) rose 4.0 points (P=0.056). Response rates for clinicians were 36% (baseline) and 33% (post-intervention). No differences were found in attitude, knowledge and awareness and global awareness score.