Evaluation of the Family Liaison Officer role during the COVID-19 pandemic

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

Communication within healthcare settings is often a subject of contention for patients’ families at the best of times; however, contention was greatly magnified in the United Kingdom by restrictions on hospital visitations during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. To support communication between families and patients, a central London hospital introduced the role of the family liaison officer (FLO). This study was designed to evaluate the rapid implementation of the FLO and to explore potential for it to become a standard role. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five FLOs and seven colleagues who had worked alongside them between April and June, 2020. Two versions of the role emerged based on FLOs’ previous background: clinical (primarily nurses) and pastoral (primarily play specialists). The FLO became a key role during the pandemic in facilitating communication between patients, clinical teams, and families. Challenges associated with the role reflect the speed in which it was implemented. It was evident to those in the role, and clinicians who the role was supporting, that it had potential to help improve hospital communication and the work of healthcare staff beyond the pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.18.21256801: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The current evaluation has a number of limitations. First, we were only able to engage five of the nine members of staff who had been in the FLO role. The four who were not represented may have not agreed to participate because they had a different perspective of the role that they were not willing to share so we could potentially have a biased view of the role. Similarly, we were only able to interview seven colleagues who worked alongside the FLOs so there could be other views not captured in these data. Secondly, this evaluation focused on the FLOs who were based in COVID-19 ward areas not in critical care or high dependency units. These FLOs were mostly medical backgrounds, who have a different style of communication to nurses and youth workers (19). The types of information and manner in which they delivered this could therefore have been different. Finally, the benefit to patients and families is from the professional perspective which does not necessarily reflect the experiences of patients or families. This is something that warrants further investigation. Despite these limitations, this evaluation indicated that there was benefit of providing a dedicated role to maintain and improve communication between healthcare teams and families during a crisis and is one of but a few emerging in response to COVID-19. While this is single centre evaluation, other organisations may recognise similar experiences so will be able to apply learning to their practices if the role is r...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.