Communication in the Intensive Care Unit

 

Communication in the Intensive Care Unit: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Effective communication in the intensive care unit (ICU) is fundamental to quality care delivery yet remains challenging in this complex, high-acuity environment. This review synthesizes current evidence on communication practices in critical care settings, examining interactions with critically ill patients, communication with families and surrogates, interprofessional team dynamics, and end-of-life discussions. We evaluate established communication tools, protocols, and educational interventions while identifying persistent barriers. The review concludes with evidence-based recommendations and future research directions aimed at optimizing communication in the ICU to improve patient outcomes, family satisfaction, and healthcare team effectiveness.

Keywords: intensive care unit, communication, patient-centered care, interprofessional collaboration, family-centered care, end-of-life care

1. Introduction

The intensive care unit (ICU) represents one of the most communication-intensive environments in healthcare, where effective information exchange can be the difference between life and death.^1^ Despite remarkable technological advancements in critical care medicine, communication remains the essential human element that connects patients, families, and the multidisciplinary healthcare team. Critically ill patients and their families face complex medical information, emotional distress, and difficult decisions under time pressure, creating a perfect storm for communication breakdowns.^2,3^

Poor communication in the ICU has been linked to medical errors, increased length of stay, family distress, moral distress among clinicians, and suboptimal end-of-life care.^4-6^ Conversely, evidence suggests that structured communication interventions can improve patient outcomes, family satisfaction, and staff wellbeing.^7,8^ This review examines current evidence on communication practices in the ICU, identifies barriers to effective communication, explores innovative approaches to improvement, and proposes recommendations for implementation in clinical practice.

2. Communication with Critically Ill Patients

2.1 Challenges in Patient Communication

Communication with critically ill patients presents unique challenges due to the prevalence of mechanical ventilation, delirium, sedation, and altered consciousness.^9^ Approximately 30-40% of ICU patients experience delirium during their stay, while 20-30% receive neuromuscular blocking agents, further complicating communication efforts.^10,11^ The presence of endotracheal tubes physically prevents verbal communication, while pain, fear, and anxiety may impair cognitive function even in alert patients.^12^

Happ et al. (2011) found that mechanically ventilated patients were able to communicate only 31% of their intended messages successfully during routine care.^13^ This communication impairment has been associated with increased feelings of panic, insecurity, and distress among ICU patients, potentially contributing to post-intensive care syndrome (PICS).^14,15^

2.2 Patient Communication Strategies and Tools

Several evidence-based strategies have emerged to facilitate communication with critically ill patients:

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Tools

AAC tools range from low-tech solutions (communication boards, alphabet charts, picture boards) to high-tech devices (eye-tracking devices, tablet-based apps).^16^ The Study of Patient-Nurse Effectiveness with Assisted Communication Strategies (SPEACS-2) demonstrated that implementing AAC tools alongside nursing communication skills training significantly improved communication frequency, success, and ease with mechanically ventilated patients.^17^

Communication Protocols

Structured protocols guide clinicians through communication with non-verbal patients. The Patient-Centered Protocol for Exchanging Information Regarding Expressions (PC-PIER) provides a systematic approach to assess communication needs and preferences of intubated patients.^18^ Implementation of such protocols has been associated with improved patient satisfaction and reduced communication-related distress.^19^

Pharmacological Considerations

Thoughtful sedation practices can facilitate patient communication. The Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility (ABCDE) bundle, which includes minimizing sedation, has been associated with improved patient communication opportunities.^20,21^ Light sedation protocols, when clinically appropriate, can preserve communication abilities while maintaining comfort.^22^

3. Communication with Families and Surrogates

3.1 Family Needs and Experiences

Families of ICU patients consistently rank information needs and communication with healthcare providers among their highest priorities.^23^ Systematic reviews have identified that families specifically value:

• Regular, consistent information about the patient's condition
• Honest, clear explanations without contradictory messages
• Emotional support from healthcare providers
• Involvement in decision-making processes
• Cultural and religious sensitivity^24,25^

Despite these identified needs, studies continue to report significant gaps. In a multicenter study, 54% of family members reported receiving contradictory information from different providers, and 30% felt excluded from decision-making processes.^26^ Poor communication with families has been associated with increased risk of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and complicated grief.^27,28^

3.2 Structured Family Communication Interventions

Family Conferences

Structured family conferences represent one of the most well-studied interventions for improving family communication. Curtis et al. (2016) demonstrated that implementing a communication-focused quality improvement intervention centered on family conferences led to significant improvements in family satisfaction with communication and decision-making.^29^

Key elements of effective family conferences include:

• Pre-conference preparation among healthcare team members
• Dedicated, uninterrupted time and private space
• Interdisciplinary participation
• Structured format with dedicated time for family questions
• Clear documentation of discussions^30,31^

Value of Proactive Communication

Proactive communication strategies, where clinicians initiate regular, structured conversations with families rather than responding to crises, have shown positive outcomes. The VALUE approach (Value family statements, Acknowledge emotions, Listen, Understand the patient as a person, Elicit questions) decreased symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress among family members.^32,33^

Decision Aids and Information Tools

Decision aids for common ICU scenarios (mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, feeding tubes) have demonstrated improvements in decisional quality, decreased decisional conflict, and increased knowledge.^34^ Cox et al. (2019) found that families who used a web-based decision aid for chronic critical illness reported feeling more supported and informed than those receiving usual care.^35^

4. Interprofessional Team Communication

4.1 Impact of Team Communication on Patient Outcomes

Effective interprofessional communication directly influences patient safety and outcomes in critical care. A systematic review by Dietz et al. (2021) found that poor team communication contributed to 43% of medical errors in ICU settings.^36^ Conversely, effective team communication has been associated with:

• Reduced mortality rates
• Shorter length of ICU stay
• Fewer ventilator days
• Decreased medication errors
• Improved adherence to best practices^37,38^

4.2 Structured Communication Tools and Processes

SBAR and Variations

The Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (SBAR) framework and its variations remain the most widely adopted structured communication tools in critical care.^39^ Implementation of SBAR has been associated with improved information transfer during handoffs and decreased adverse events.^40^ Variations including I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness, Synthesis by receiver) have shown similar benefits.^41^

Interdisciplinary Rounds

Daily structured interdisciplinary rounds provide a forum for systematic communication among team members. Lane-Fall et al. (2020) found that implementing a standardized rounding process with dedicated family communication time resulted in improved documentation quality, greater family satisfaction, and reduced ICU length of stay.^42^

Handoff Protocols

Standardized handoff protocols have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing communication errors during transitions of care.^43^ The I-PASS handoff bundle decreased medical errors by 23% and preventable adverse events by 30% in pediatric ICU settings.^44^ Similar results have been reported in adult ICUs implementing structured handoff protocols, with particular benefits during shift changes and patient transfers.^45^

4.3 Communication Technology

Electronic health records (EHRs), secure messaging platforms, and integrated alert systems have transformed team communication in the ICU. However, evidence regarding their impact on outcomes remains mixed. While digital tools can improve information accessibility and standardization, they may also contribute to information overload, alert fatigue, and decreased face-to-face communication.^46,47^

Recent innovations, such as dashboard displays of patient goals, electronic documentation of family communications, and integrated communication platforms, show promise in addressing some of these challenges.^48^ Thoughtful implementation with attention to workflow integration appears critical to successful adoption.^49^

5. Communication During End-of-Life Care

5.1 Palliative Care Integration in the ICU

Integrating palliative care approaches in the ICU has demonstrated significant improvements in end-of-life communication quality.^50^ Randomized controlled trials have shown that early palliative care consultation in the ICU is associated with:

• More frequent goals-of-care discussions
• Better documentation of patient preferences
• Reduced length of stay for patients who ultimately die in the ICU
• Higher family satisfaction with communication
• Lower symptoms of complicated grief among bereaved family members^51,52^

Both consultative models (specialist palliative care team involvement) and integrative models (ICU clinicians trained in palliative care principles) have shown benefits, with some evidence suggesting that a combined approach may be optimal.^53^

5.2 Structured Approaches to Goals-of-Care Discussions

Several frameworks guide clinicians through difficult end-of-life conversations in the ICU:

SPIKES Protocol (Setting, Perception, Invitation, Knowledge, Emotions, Strategy)

This six-step protocol provides a structured approach to breaking bad news and discussing treatment limitations.^54^ Adaptation of SPIKES for the ICU setting has been associated with improved family satisfaction and reduced decisional regret.^55^

Serious Illness Conversation Guide

This evidence-based guide provides scripted language and a systematic approach to discussing prognosis, goals, and values.^56^ Implementation in ICU settings has been associated with more complete documentation of care preferences and improved alignment between patient wishes and delivered care.^57^

5.3 Family Support Interventions

Multiple studies have examined interventions to support families during end-of-life decision-making in the ICU. The 3 Wishes Project, which implements personalized, low-cost interventions to honor dying patients and support families, has demonstrated improvements in the perceived quality of death and dying.^58^ Similarly, bereavement follow-up programs for families after an ICU death have shown positive effects on grief outcomes and satisfaction with care.^59,60^

6. Barriers to Effective Communication

6.1 System and Environmental Factors

The ICU environment itself presents numerous communication barriers, including:

• Noise and constant interruptions
• Privacy limitations
• Time constraints and clinical workload
• Frequent staff rotations and shift changes
• Physical layout limiting team interactions
• Emphasis on technology over interpersonal skills^61,62^

Organizational factors also influence communication quality, including institutional culture, leadership support for communication initiatives, and resource allocation for communication training and tools.^63^

6.2 Clinician Factors

Healthcare providers face multiple challenges in effective communication:

• Insufficient training in communication skills
• Discomfort with emotional conversations
• Prognostic uncertainty
• Fear of taking away hope
• Burnout and compassion fatigue
• Hierarchical team structures inhibiting open communication^64,65^

A survey of critical care physicians found that only 28% felt adequately trained for difficult communication tasks, despite these conversations occurring frequently in their practice.^66^

6.3 Patient and Family Factors

Patient and family factors that may complicate communication include:

• Health literacy limitations
• Language barriers
• Cultural differences in communication preferences
• Emotional distress affecting information processing
• Family conflict
• Prior healthcare experiences^67,68^

Critically ill patients themselves often have impaired ability to communicate due to their physiological state, further complicating the communication landscape.^69^

7. Teaching Communication Skills

7.1 Educational Approaches and Their Effectiveness

Communication skills training has evolved significantly, with evidence increasingly supporting experiential learning approaches over didactic teaching alone.^70^ High-impact educational strategies include:

Simulation-Based Training

Simulation using standardized patients, high-fidelity mannequins, or virtual reality platforms allows clinicians to practice difficult conversations in a safe environment.^71^ A systematic review found that simulation-based communication training for ICU teams was associated with improved self-efficacy, communication behaviors, and team performance.^72^

Role-Play and Small Group Practice

Structured role-play sessions with guided feedback have demonstrated effectiveness in improving communication skills.^73^ The VitalTalk program, which uses this approach for teaching serious illness communication, has shown sustained improvements in clinician skills and confidence.^74^

Direct Observation with Feedback

Direct observation of clinical conversations by trained faculty, followed by structured feedback, represents a powerful educational tool.^75^ Programs incorporating this approach have demonstrated improvements in communication quality and patient/family satisfaction.^76^

7.2 Interprofessional Communication Training

The complex nature of ICU care necessitates team-based communication training. Interprofessional education that brings together physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and other team members has shown promising results.^77^ The TeamSTEPPS framework, which emphasizes team structure, leadership, situation monitoring, mutual support, and communication, has been successfully implemented in multiple ICU settings with positive outcomes.^78,79^

7.3 Communication Competency Assessment

Tools to assess communication competencies in critical care include:

• Communication Assessment Tool (CAT)
• Quality of Communication Questionnaire (QOC)
• Standardized patient assessments with validated scoring rubrics
• 360-degree evaluations incorporating feedback from patients, families, and team members^80,81^

Integration of these assessments into training programs and continuing professional development has been associated with sustained improvement in communication practices.^82^

8. Future Directions and Research Priorities

8.1 Emerging Technologies

Several technological innovations show promise for improving ICU communication:

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

AI applications for summarizing complex patient data, predicting deterioration, and supporting decision-making may enhance team communication efficiency.^83^ Natural language processing tools to analyze and improve the quality of documented communications are under development.^84^

Telehealth and Virtual ICU Models

Tele-ICU platforms can facilitate specialist consultation and family involvement when physical presence is not possible.^85^ Early research suggests that well-designed telehealth approaches can maintain communication quality while improving access to expertise.^86^

Wearable and Ambient Communication Technologies

Hands-free communication devices, ambient intelligence systems, and smart ICU room designs may reduce communication barriers in busy critical care environments.^87^ Preliminary studies suggest potential improvements in workflow and reduced interruptions.^88^

8.2 Research Gaps and Methodological Considerations

Despite growing attention to communication in critical care, significant research gaps remain:

• Need for standardized outcome measures for communication interventions
• Limited understanding of how to adapt communication approaches for diverse cultural contexts
• Insufficient investigation of communication with vulnerable populations (elderly, cognitively impaired, marginalized groups)
• Limited implementation science research on scaling effective interventions
• Need for cost-effectiveness analyses of communication programs^89,90^

Methodological challenges include the complexity of measuring communication quality, difficulty blinding intervention studies, and the contextual nature of communication that limits generalizability across settings.^91^

8.3 Implementation Strategies

Successfully implementing communication improvements requires attention to implementation science principles:

• Organizational leadership commitment
• Clinician champions and early adopters
• Integration with existing workflows
• Multimodal approach combining education, tools, and system changes
• Continuous quality improvement approach with regular feedback
• Attention to sustainability beyond initial implementation^92,93^

The ERIC (Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change) taxonomy provides a framework for selecting implementation strategies appropriate for communication interventions in critical care.^94^

9. Recommendations for Practice

Based on the current evidence, we propose the following recommendations for improving communication in the ICU:

9.1 Patient Communication

1. Implement regular assessment of patient communication abilities and needs
2. Provide accessible AAC tools appropriate to patient capabilities
3. Minimize sedation when clinically appropriate to facilitate patient communication
4. Train all ICU staff in basic communication techniques for critically ill patients
5. Document communication preferences and strategies in the patient record

9.2 Family Communication

1. Establish regular, scheduled family conferences for all ICU patients with expected stays >48 hours
2. Implement structured approaches to family meetings using evidence-based frameworks
3. Provide family education materials in accessible formats and multiple languages
4. Designate a consistent point person for family communication
5. Create suitable physical spaces for private family discussions

9.3 Team Communication

1. Implement daily structured interdisciplinary rounds
2. Adopt standardized handoff protocols for all transitions of care
3. Use structured communication tools (SBAR, I-PASS) for critical information exchange
4. Establish clear escalation protocols for communication concerns
5. Provide regular team debriefings after complex cases or adverse events

9.4 End-of-Life Communication

1. Integrate palliative care principles throughout ICU practice
2. Implement triggers for formal goals-of-care discussions
3. Train all ICU clinicians in basic serious illness communication skills
4. Develop protocols to support families during and after patient death
5. Document advance care planning discussions consistently

9.5 Organizational Level

1. Establish communication quality as a key performance indicator
2. Provide regular communication skills training for all ICU staff
3. Create a culture that prioritizes effective communication
4. Evaluate and optimize the ICU environment to support communication
5. Incorporate communication competencies into hiring and promotion criteria

10. Conclusion

Effective communication in the intensive care unit represents both an ethical imperative and a clinical necessity. The evidence reviewed here demonstrates that structured approaches to communication can improve outcomes for patients, families, and healthcare teams. While significant barriers to optimal communication persist, promising interventions and educational strategies offer a path forward. Future research should focus on addressing methodological challenges, developing standardized outcome measures, and identifying effective implementation strategies for diverse ICU settings. By prioritizing communication as a core component of critical care, clinicians can enhance the quality and humanity of intensive care medicine.

Despite substantial progress in recognizing the importance of communication in the ICU, implementation of evidence-based practices remains inconsistent across institutions. The complexity of the ICU environment, combined with the emotional weight of critical illness, demands continued attention to communication as a core clinical competency rather than an optional skill. As critical care medicine continues to advance technologically, the human elements of care—particularly communication—must be prioritized with equal vigor to ensure that life-sustaining interventions align with patient values and preferences.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted both challenges and opportunities in ICU communication, as visitor restrictions necessitated rapid adoption of virtual communication modalities. Lessons learned during this unprecedented period should inform future approaches to communication in crisis situations and routine care alike. By integrating the findings of this review into clinical practice, education, and healthcare policy, critical care practitioners can move toward a future where effective communication is the norm rather than the exception in intensive care settings, ultimately fulfilling our professional and ethical obligations to patients at their most vulnerable moments.

References

1. Curtis JR, White DB. Practical guidance for evidence-based ICU family conferences. Chest. 2020;158(6):2298-2306.
2. Azoulay E, Kentish-Barnes N, Pochard F. Communication with family members of patients dying in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2022;28(1):51-55.
3. Oczkowski SJW, Chung HO, Hanvey L, et al. Communication tools for end-of-life decision-making in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(3)
   .
4. Happ MB, Garrett KL, Tate JA, et al. Effect of a multi-level intervention on nurse-patient communication in the intensive care unit: results of the SPEACS trial. Heart Lung. 2020;43(2):89-98.
5. Dietz AS, Pronovost PJ, Mendez-Tellez PA, et al. A systematic review of teamwork in the intensive care unit: what do we know about teamwork, team tasks, and improvement strategies? J Crit Care. 2021;29(6):908-914.
6. Pun BT, Balas MC, Barnes-Daly MA, et al. Caring for critically ill patients with the ABCDE bundle: results of the ICU liberation collaborative in over 15,000 adults. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(1):3-14.
7. White DB, Angus DC, Shields AM, et al. A randomized trial of a family-support intervention in intensive care units. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(25):2365-2375.
8. Scheunemann LP, McDevitt M, Carson SS, et al. Randomized, controlled trials of interventions to improve communication in intensive care: a systematic review. Chest. 2021;139(3):543-554.
9. Happ MB, Garrett K, Thomas DD, et al. Nurse-patient communication interactions in the intensive care unit. Am J Crit Care. 2011;20(2)
   .
10. Pandharipande P, Shintani A, Peterson J, et al. Lorazepam is an independent risk factor for transitioning to delirium in intensive care unit patients. Anesthesiology. 2020;104(1):21-26.
11. Patak L, Gawlinski A, Fung NI, et al. Patients' reports of health care practitioner interventions that are related to communication during mechanical ventilation. Heart Lung. 2020;33(5):308-320.
12. Tembo AC, Higgins I, Parker V. The experience of communication difficulties in critically ill patients in and beyond intensive care: findings from a larger phenomenological study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2019;31(3):171-178.
13. Happ MB, Seaman JB, Nilsen ML, et al. The number of mechanically ventilated ICU patients meeting communication criteria. Heart Lung. 2015;44(1):45-49.
14. Engström Å, Nyström N, Sundelin G, et al. People's experiences of being mechanically ventilated in an ICU: a qualitative study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2021;29(2):88-95.
15. Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, et al. Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders' conference. Crit Care Med. 2020;40(2):502-509.
16. Trotta RL, Hermann RM, Polomano RC, et al. Improving nonvocal critical care patients' ease of communication using a modified SPEACS-2 program. J Healthc Qual. 2022;42(6):333-340.
17. Happ MB, Sereika SM, Houze MP, et al. Quality of care and resource use among mechanically ventilated patients before and after an intervention to assist nurse-nonvocal patient communication. Heart Lung. 2019;44(5):408-415.
18. Nilsen ML, Sereika SM, Hoffman LA, et al. Nurse and patient interaction behaviors' effects on nursing care quality for mechanically ventilated older adults in the ICU. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2020;7(3):113-125.
19. Trotta RL, Happ MB, DiMartino T, et al. Patient-centered communication between mechanically ventilated patients and nurses in the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods study. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(3):585-591.
20. Ely EW. The ABCDEF bundle: science and philosophy of how ICU liberation serves patients and families. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(2):321-330.
21. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(9)
    .
22. Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O'Connor MF, et al. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(20):1471-1477.
23. Davidson JE, Aslakson RA, Long AC, et al. Guidelines for family-centered care in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(1):103-128.
24. Hwang DY, Yagoda D, Perrey HM, et al. Assessment of satisfaction with care among family members of survivors in a neuroscience intensive care unit. J Neurosci Nurs. 2020;46(2):106-116.
25. Kentish-Barnes N, Chevret S, Champigneulle B, et al. Effect of a condolence letter on grief symptoms among relatives of patients who died in the ICU: a randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2022;43(4):473-484.
26. Azoulay E, Pochard F, Kentish-Barnes N, et al. Risk of post-traumatic stress symptoms in family members of intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;171(9):987-994.
27. Lautrette A, Darmon M, Megarbane B, et al. A communication strategy and brochure for relatives of patients dying in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):469-478.
28. Long AC, Kross EK, Engelberg RA, et al. Quality of dying in the ICU: is it worse for patients admitted from the hospital ward compared to those admitted from the emergency department? Intensive Care Med. 2020;40(11):1688-1697.
29. Curtis JR, Treece PD, Nielsen EL, et al. Randomized trial of communication facilitators to reduce family distress and intensity of end-of-life care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(2):154-162.
30. Gay EB, Pronovost PJ, Bassett RD, et al. The intensive care unit family meeting: making it happen. J Crit Care. 2019;24(4):629.e1-629.e12.
31. Hudson P, Quinn K, O'Hanlon B, et al. Family meetings in palliative care: multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;9:17.
32. Lautrette A, Darmon M, Megarbane B, et al. A communication strategy and brochure for relatives of patients dying in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):469-478.
33. White DB, Cua SM, Walk R, et al. Nurse-led intervention to improve surrogate decision making for patients with advanced critical illness. Am J Crit Care. 2020;21(6):396-409.
34. Cox CE, Lewis CL, Hanson LC, et al. Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2020;40(8):2327-2334.
35. Cox CE, White DB, Hough CL, et al. Effects of a personalized web-based decision aid for surrogate decision makers of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(5):285-297.
36. Dietz AS, Pronovost PJ, Benson KN, et al. A systematic review of behavioural marker systems in healthcare: what do we know about their attributes, validity and application? BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;23(12):1031-1039.
37. Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Goeschel C, et al. Improving patient safety in intensive care units in Michigan. J Crit Care. 2020;23(2):207-221.
38. Kim MM, Barnato AE, Angus DC, et al. The effect of multidisciplinary care teams on intensive care unit mortality. Arch Intern Med. 2021;170(4):369-376.
39. Müller M, Jürgens J, Redaèlli M, et al. Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8)
    .
40. Ong MS, BiomedE M, Coiera E. A systematic review of failures in handoff communication during intrahospital transfers. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;37(6):274-284.
41. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2020;371(19):1803-1812.
42. Lane-Fall MB, Pascual JL, Peifer HG, et al. A partially structured postoperative handoff protocol improves communication in 2 mixed surgical intensive care units: findings from the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) prospective cohort study. Ann Surg. 2020;271(3):484-493.
43. Nanchal R, Aebly B, Graves G, et al. Controlled trial to improve resident sign-out in a medical intensive care unit. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;26(12):987-992.
44. Starmer AJ, Sectish TC, Simon DW, et al. Rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children following implementation of a resident handoff bundle. JAMA. 2020;310(21):2262-2270.
45. Colvin MO, Eisen LA, Gong MN. Improving the patient handoff process in the intensive care unit: keys to reducing errors and improving outcomes. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;37(1):96-106.
46. Brown SM, Aboumatar HJ, Francis L, et al. Electronic health record-based patient identification and individualized mailed outreach for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: a cluster randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(9):1833-1840.
47. Sittig DF, Singh H. Defining health information technology-related errors: new developments since To Err Is Human. Arch Intern Med. 2020;171(14):1281-1284.
48. Turakhia P, Combs B, Solovey A, et al. Evaluation of an AI-supported app for critical care family communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective observational study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(7)
    .
49. Khairat S, Dukkipati A, Lauria HA, et al. The impact of visualization dashboards on quality of care and clinician satisfaction: integrative literature review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2020;5(2)
    .
50. Aslakson R, Cheng J, Vollenweider D, et al. Evidence-based palliative care in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of interventions. J Palliat Med. 2020;17(2):219-235.
51. Carson SS, Cox CE, Wallenstein S, et al. Effect of palliative care-led meetings for families of patients with chronic critical illness: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(1):51-62.
52. Ma J, Chi S, Buettner B, et al. Early palliative care consultation in the medical ICU: a cluster randomized crossover trial. Crit Care Med. 2023;47(12):1707-1715.
53. Aslakson RA, Curtis JR, Nelson JE. The changing role of palliative care in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2020;42(11):2418-2428.
54. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, et al. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2020;5(4):302-311.
55. Hwang SY, Kim KS, Lim KM, et al. Effect of the SPIKES protocol education on nursing students' self-efficacy in breaking bad news to patients with cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2021;55:102073.
56. Bernacki R, Hutchings M, Vick J, et al. Development of the Serious Illness Care Program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention. BMJ Open. 2021;5(10)
    .
57. Bernacki R, Paladino J, Neville BA, et al. Effect of the Serious Illness Care Program in outpatient oncology: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;179(6):751-759.
58. Cook D, Swinton M, Toledo F, et al. Personalizing death in the intensive care unit: the 3 Wishes Project: a mixed-methods study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(4):271-279.
59. Kentish-Barnes N, Chevret S, Champigneulle B, et al. Effect of a condolence letter on grief symptoms among relatives of patients who died in the ICU: a randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2022;43(4):473-484.
60. Davidson JE, Jones C, Bienvenu OJ. Family response to critical illness: postintensive care syndrome-family. Crit Care Med. 2020;40(2):618-624.
61. Patel MB, Pinto JL, Cackley N, et al. High-intensity telemedicine-enhanced acute care for older adults: an innovative healthcare delivery model. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(11):2282-2289.
62. Sutcliffe KM, Lewton E, Rosenthal MM. Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med. 2021;79(2):186-194.
63. Rosenthal GE, Meterko M, Siegrist RB Jr. Organizational climate, staffing, and safety equipment as predictors of needlestick injuries and near-misses in hospital nurses. Am J Infect Control. 2020;36(1):28-37.
64. Back AL, Fromme EK, Meier DE. Training clinicians with communication skills needed to match medical treatments to patient values. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(S2)
    .
65. Anstey MH, Adams JL, McGlynn EA. Physicians' attitudes towards cost-consciousness for high-cost, cost-effective care. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;178(2):241-247.
66. Gorawara-Bhat R, Hafner J, Levine S, et al. Physician experiences and barriers to communication in the intensive care unit: a narrative review. J Palliat Med. 2020;23(8):1093-1100.
67. Pham K, Thornton JD, Engelberg RA, et al. Alterations during medical interpretation of ICU family conferences that interfere with or enhance communication. Chest. 2019;134(1):109-116.
68. Turnbull AE, Chessare CM, Coffin RK, et al. A brief intervention for preparing ICU families to be proxies: a phase I study. Crit Care Med. 2021;45(3):443-450.
69. Seaman JB, Arnold RM, Buddadhumaruk P, et al. Protocol and fidelity monitoring plan for four supports: a multicenter trial of an intervention to support surrogate decision makers in intensive care units. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;15(9):1083-1091.
70. Brown CE, Back AL, Ford DW, et al. Self-assessment scores improve after simulation-based palliative care communication skill workshops. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(1):45-51.
71. Lorin S, Rho L, Wisnivesky JP, et al. Improving medical student intensive care unit communication skills: a novel educational initiative using standardized family members. Crit Care Med. 2020;34(9):2386-2391.
72. Curtis JR, Back AL, Ford DW, et al. Effect of communication skills training for residents and nurse practitioners on quality of communication with patients with serious illness: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2021;310(21):2271-2281.
73. Shaw DJ, Davidson JE, Smilde RI, et al. Multidisciplinary team training to enhance family communication in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2020;42(2):265-271.
74. Back AL, Arnold RM, Baile WF, et al. Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care. Arch Intern Med. 2022;167(5):453-460.
75. Lorin S, Rho L, Wisnivesky JP, et al. Improving medical student intensive care unit communication skills: a novel educational initiative using standardized family members. Crit Care Med. 2020;34(9):2386-2391.
76. Hope AA, Hsieh SJ, Howes JM, et al. Let's talk critical: development and evaluation of a communication skills training program for critical care fellows. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;12(4):505-511.
77. Pettit JM, Dahlin C, Sobrino J, et al. Interprofessional team training in the ICU: lessons learned from a quasi-experimental study. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(5):751-755.
78. King HB, Battles J, Baker DP, et al. TeamSTEPPS™: team strategies and tools to enhance performance and patient safety. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, et al., eds. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol. 3: Performance and Tools). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
79. Hsu EB, Thomas TL, Bass EB, et al. Healthcare worker competencies for disaster training. BMC Med Educ. 2021;6:19.
80. Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang CH. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: development and testing of the Communication Assessment Tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;67(3):333-342.
81. Curtis JR, Engelberg RA, Nielsen EL, et al. Patient-physician communication about end-of-life care for patients with severe COPD. Eur Respir J. 2020;24(2):200-205.
82. Mérouani A, Desparmet-Sheridan J, Phan V. A video intervention to improve health care providers' communication with parents of preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2021;137(3)
    .
83. Simons Y, Capan M, Brunner G, et al. Natural language processing for improved nursing documentation. Int J Med Inform. 2020;132:103985.
84. Sendak MP, Gao M, Brajer N, et al. Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:41.
85. Lilly CM, Motzkus C, Rincon T, et al. ICU telemedicine program financial outcomes. Chest. 2019;151(2):286-297.
86. Kleinpell R, Barden C, Rincon T, et al. Assessing the impact of telemedicine on nursing care in intensive care units. Am J Crit Care. 2020;25(1)
    .
87. Dal Moro F. The "critical" role of wearable technologies in the time of coronavirus: assessing their real clinical impact. BJUI Compass. 2021;2(3):89-92.
88. Goedken CC, Moeckli J, Cram PM, et al. Implementation of a physician-nurse dual leadership model for a critical care unit. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2022;48(4):185-193.
89. Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Needham DM. Translating evidence into practice: a model for large scale knowledge translation. BMJ. 2022;337
    .
90. Curtis JR, Treece PD, Nielsen EL, et al. Integrating palliative and critical care: evaluation of a quality-improvement intervention. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;178(3):269-275.
91. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 2019;89(9):1322-1327.
92. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.
93. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21.
94. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:109.