A human-centred partnership in the intensive care unit (ICU) aims to integrate person-centred care, communication, emotional support, equity, and collaboration into ICU environments. The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) developed a consensus statement on human-centred partnership in the ICU following a systematic, multi-phase, evidence-informed methodology incorporating the views of ICU professionals, academics, and patient and family representatives. This international multidisciplinary panel of 46 members conducted rapid reviews addressing 20 Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes (PICO) questions across six domains: person-centred care; communication and transparency; emotional well-being; equity, diversity, and inclusion; ICU environment; technology and innovation. Based on the evidence synthesis, 53 draft statements were developed and evaluated through a two-round eDelphi study. The final set of statements was discussed and ratified at an expert consensus meeting with the initial panel of experts and with patients and family representatives. A total of 201 international stakeholders participated in round 1 and 149 in round 2. Members of the expert consensus meeting ultimately endorsed 43 consensus statements. Key recommendations supported flexible family visitation, structured interdisciplinary communication, empathy-based staff training, psychological support for patients and ICU professionals, culturally responsive care, environmental interventions to improve sleep and reduce delirium, and the integration of digital supported technologies. The consensus statement on human-centred partnership in the ICU provides a comprehensive framework for clinicians with evidence-informed directions to deliver high-quality practice across diverse ICU settings. By prioritising person-centred care, communication, inclusivity, and well-being alongside responsible technological innovation, the experiences and outcomes of patients, families, and ICU professionals may improve.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Latour et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Intensive Care Medicine