Purpose: Providing an overview of studies on family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks of critically ill patients, addressing two research questions (RQ): 1) What are the perceptions of patients, relatives, and staff about family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks? and 2) What are the effects of interventions of family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks? Material and methods: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods articles were identified using PubMed, Embase and CINAHL. Studies reporting on family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks of adult critically ill patients were included. A convergent segregated approach for mixed-methods reviews was used. Results: Eighteen articles were included; 13 for RQ1, and 5 for RQ2. The included studies were quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method, including between 8 and 452 participants. The descriptive studies exhibit a general appreciation for involvement of relatives in physiotherapy-related tasks, although most of the studies reported on family involvement in general care and incorporated diverse physiotherapy-related tasks. One study explored the effectiveness of family participation on a rehabilitation outcome and showed that the percentage of patients mobilizing three times a day increased. Conclusion: Positive attitudes were observed among patients, their relatives and staff towards family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks of critically ill patients. However, limited research has been done into the effect of interventions containing family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks.
Background: Optimizing transitional care by practicing family-centered care might reduce unplanned events for patients who undergo major abdominal cancer surgery. However, it remains unknown whether involving family caregivers in patients’ healthcare also has negative consequences for patient safety. This study assessed the safety of family involvement in patients’ healthcare by examining the cause of unplanned events in patients who participated in a family involvement program (FIP) after major abdominal cancer surgery. Methods: This is a secondary analysis focusing on the intervention group of a prospective cohort study conducted in the Netherlands. Data were collected from April 2019 to May 2022. Participants in the intervention group were patients who engaged in a FIP. Unplanned events were analyzed, and root causes were identified using the medical version of a prevention- and recovery-information system for monitoring and analysis (PRISMA) that analyses unintended events in healthcare. Unplanned events were compared between patients who received care from family caregivers and patients who received professional at-home care after discharge. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze data. Results: Of the 152 FIP participants, 68 experienced an unplanned event and were included. 112 unplanned events occurred with 145 root causes since some unplanned events had several root causes. Most root causes of unplanned events were patient-related factors (n = 109, 75%), such as patient characteristics and disease-related factors. No root causes due to inadequate healthcare from the family caregiver were identified. Unplanned events did not differ statistically (interquartile range 1–2) (p = 0.35) between patients who received care from trained family caregivers and those who received professional at-home care after discharge. Conclusion: Based on the insights from the root-cause analysis in this prospective multicenter study, it appears that unplanned emergency room visits and hospital readmissions are not related to the active involvement of family caregivers in surgical follow-up care. Moreover, surgical follow-up care by trained family caregivers during hospitalization was not associated with increased rates of unplanned adverse events. Hence, the concept of active family involvement by proficiently trained family caregivers in postoperative care appears safe and feasible for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.
This chapter helps the reader to define the principles of motivational interviewing (MI) and coaching, understand the intervention and tasks associated with the integrated case management process, relate patient engagement and adherence to motivational coaching and to understand patient-centered preference engagement and share decision-making (SDM) activities. “MI is a person-centered counseling style for addressing the common problem of ambivalence about change”. It is an effective intervention to enhance motivation for behavioral change. While performing MI, the case manager tunes the patient’s process of becoming (more) motivated and the case manager’s process of promoting intrinsic motivation, through four MI processes: engaging, focusing, evoking, and planning. These central processes help the case manager navigate effectively through MI conversations about behavioral change. Both SDM and MI are solidly based on a good and trusting working relationship between patient and case manager.
