Table 7

Satisfaction outcome measures

StudyHuang et al 2018Shaw et al 2014Dykes et al 2017Weber et al 2018Huffines et al 2013
Intervention
measure		Primary physician involvementStaff teamwork trainingWeb-based engagementFamily roundsSupportive care algorithm
FS ICU 24—global scoreMean (SD)
Control: 84.91 (12.17)
Intervention: 86.4 (11.76)
Change: 1.49 p=0.16
CI: −2.14 to 5.12		Mean score
Pre: 83.21
Post: 85.69
Change: 2.48 p=0.32		Mean score
Pre: 84.3 (3)
Post: 90 (1.9)
Change: 5.7 p<0.05*
CI: 2.31 to 9.09		Mean score (SD)
Control: 86.0 (16.0)
Intervention: 90.8 (10.7)
Change: 4.8 p=0.20
CI: −0.12 to 9.72		 
HCAHPS  % top score 9–10
Pre: 71.8%
Post: 93.3%
Change 21.5 p<0.05*
RR: 1.33, CI: 1.10 to 1.55		  
Support given   % top scores
Control: 54%
Intervention: 71%
Change: 17% p>0.05
RR: 1.32, CI: 0.99 to 1.75		% scoring excellent
Pre: 60%
Post 75%
Change: 15% p=0.14
RR: 1.23, CI: 0.91 to 1.65
StudyWhite et al 2018Cray 1989Dalal et al 2015Jacobowski et al 2010
Intervention
measure		Multicomponent family-support programmeFamily-support programmePatient-centred toolkitFamily rounds
Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness (PPPC)Mean score
Control: 1.8
Intervention: 1.7
Change: −0.15, p=0.006*
CI: −0.26 to −0.04		 
Satisfaction with intervention % Satisfied
100% agreed (76/76)		% Satisfied
72% (13/18)		 
Time to ask questions % highest score
Pre: 40%
Post: 23%
Change: −17%, p=0.02*
RR: 0.57, CI: 0.37 to 0.90

  • FS ICU, family satisfaction intensive care unit; HCAHPS, Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems; MD, mean difference; PPPC, Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness ; RR, relative risk.