Psychological crisis and emergency intervention for frontline critical care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: To explore the main feelings and coping strategies among frontline critical care workers during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate the level of satisfaction after a psychological crisis and emergency intervention. BACKGROUND: The health crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed critical care workers to an intense physical and emotional burden. Scientific research recommends psychological crisis and emergency interventions during the acute phase to help cope with the situation and prevent emotional side effects. DESIGN: A multicentre descriptive study with mixed qualitative and quantitative data was developed. METHODS: Healthcare and non-healthcare critical care workers from 16 hospitals were included. Psychological crisis assistance was given (for individuals and groups), both face-to-face and online, with 18 psychologists for two months. Content analysis from the psychologists' session reports after each intervention was performed (COREQ). Satisfaction with the intervention was assessed with an 'ad hoc' 21-item online survey. RESULTS: A total of 553 interventions were carried out (361 individually and 192 in groups). Four themes were identified: 1-Imbalance between occupational demands and resources; 2-Acute stress responses; 3-Personal and professional consequences; and 4-Protection factors. The main protection factor identified was group cohesion and perceived social support. The mean general satisfaction with the intervention was high and 96.2% (n=252) of the participants would recommend it in future. CONCLUSIONS: A psychological crisis and emergency intervention helped critical care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic to verbalise and integrate the situation, providing strategies to cope with the experience with a high level of satisfaction from the participants assisted. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, support groups guided by psychologists fostered reflection on aspects related to work, interaction with patients and relatives and social support from workmates that help them for coping with stress, share emotions and experiences and feel understood.

Worldwide Survey of the "Assessing Pain, Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials, Choice of Drugs, Delirium Monitoring/Management, Early Exercise/Mobility, and Family Empowerment" (ABCDEF) Bundle.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the knowledge and use of the Assessment, prevention, and management of pain; spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle to implement the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines. DESIGN: Worldwide online survey. SETTING: Intensive care. INTERVENTION: A cross-sectional online survey using the Delphi method was administered to intensivists worldwide, to assess the knowledge and use of all aspects of the ABCDEF bundle. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 1,521 respondents from 47 countries, 57% had implemented the ABCDEF bundle, with varying degrees of compliance across continents. Most of the respondents (83%) used a scale to evaluate pain. Spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials are performed in 66% and 67% of the responder ICUs, respectively. Sedation scale was used in 89% of ICUs. Delirium monitoring was implemented in 70% of ICUs, but only 42% used a validated delirium tool. Likewise, early mobilization was "prescribed" by most, but 69% had no mobility team and 79% used no formal mobility scale. Only 36% of the respondents assessed ICU-acquired weakness. Family members were actively involved in 67% of ICUs; however, only 33% used dedicated staff to support families and only 35% reported that their unit was open 24 hr/d for family visits. CONCLUSIONS: The current implementation of the ABCDEF bundle varies across individual components and regions. We identified specific targets for quality improvement and adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. Our data reflect a significant but incomplete shift toward patient- and family-centered ICU care in accordance with the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines.

Family centeredness of care: a cross-sectional study in intensive care units part of the European society of intensive care medicine.

PURPOSE: To identify key components and variations in family-centered care practices. METHODS: A cross-sectional study, conducted across ESICM members. Participating ICUs completed a questionnaire covering general ICU characteristics, visitation policies, team-family interactions, and end-of-life decision-making. The primary outcome, self-rated family-centeredness, was assessed using a visual analog scale. Additionally, respondents completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Ethical Decision Making Climate Questionnaire to capture burnout dimensions and assess the ethical decision-making climate. RESULTS: The response rate was 53% (respondents from 359/683 invited ICUs who actually open the email); participating healthcare professionals (HCPs) were from Europe (62%), Asia (9%), South America (6%), North America (5%), Middle East (4%), and Australia/New Zealand (4%). The importance of family-centeredness was ranked high, median 7 (IQR 6-8) of 10 on VAS. Significant differences were observed across quartiles of family centeredness, including in visitation policies availability of a waiting rooms, family rooms, family information leaflet, visiting hours, night visits, sleep in the ICU, and in team-family interactions, including daily information, routine day-3 conference, and willingness to empower nurses and relatives. Higher family centeredness correlated with family involvement in rounds, participation in patient care and end-of-life practices. Burnout symptoms (41% of respondents) were negatively associated with family-centeredness. Ethical climate and willingness to empower nurses were independent predictors of family centeredness. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the need to prioritize healthcare providers' mental health for enhanced family-centered care. Further research is warranted to assess the impact of improving the ethical climate on family-centeredness.

Moral distress, emotional impact and coping in intensive care unit staff during the outbreak of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: From the beginning, the COVID-19 pandemic increased ICU workloads and created exceptionally difficult ethical dilemmas. ICU staff around the world have been subject to high levels of moral stress, potentially leading to mental health problems. There is only limited evidence on moral distress levels and coping styles among Spanish ICU staff, and how they influenced health professionals' mental health during the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess moral distress, related mental health problems (anxiety and depression), and coping styles among ICU staff during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: The study setting consisted of intensive care unit and areas converted into intensive care units in public and private hospitals. A total of 434 permanent and temporary intensive care staff (reassigned due to the pandemic from other departments to units) answered an online questionnaire between March and June 2020. METHODS: Sociodemographic and job variables, moral distress, anxiety, depression, and coping mechanisms were anonymously evaluated through a self-reported questionnaire. Descriptive and correlation analyses were conducted and multivariate linear regression models were developed to explore the predictive ability of moral distress and coping on anxiety and depression. RESULTS: Moral distress during the pandemic is determined by situations related to the patient and family, the intensive care unit, and resource management of the organisations themselves. intensive care unit staff already reached moderate levels of moral distress, anxiety, and depression during the first wave of the pandemic. Temporary staff (redeployed from other units) obtained higher scores in these variables (p = 0.04, p = 0.038, and p = 0.009, respectively) than permanent staff, as well as in greater intention to leave their current position (p = 0.03). This intention was also stronger in health staff working in areas converted into intensive care units (45.2%) than in normal intensive care units (40.2%) (p = 0.02). Moral distress, coupled with primarily avoidance-oriented coping styles, explains 37% (AdR2) of the variance in anxiety and 38% (AdR2) of the variance in depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that the emotional well-being of intensive care unit staff was already at risk during the first wave of the pandemic. The moral distress they experienced was related to anxiety and depression issues, as well as the desire to leave the profession, and should be addressed, not only in permanent staff, but also in temporary staff, redeployed to these units as reinforcement workers.

Humanizing the ICU Patient: A Qualitative Exploration of Behaviors Experienced by Patients, Caregivers, and ICU Staff.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how patients and family members experience dehumanizing or humanizing treatment when in the ICU. DESIGN: Qualitative study included web-based focus groups and open-ended surveys posted to ICU patient/family social media boards. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Social media responses were collected and organized by stakeholder group. Data underwent qualitative analysis. SETTING: Remote focus groups and online surveys. PATIENTS: ICU patient survivors, family members, and ICU teams. INTERVENTIONS: Not available. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Semi-structured questions and open-ended survey responses. We enrolled 40 patients/family members and 31 ICU team members. Focus groups and surveys revealed three primary themes orienting humanizing/dehumanizing ICU experiences: 1) communication, 2) outcomes, and 3) causes of dehumanization. Dehumanization occurred during "communication" exchanges when ICU team members talked "over" patients, made distressing remarks when patients were present, or failed to inform patients about ICU-related care. "Outcomes" of dehumanization were associated with patient loss of trust in the medical team, loss of motivation to participate in ICU recovery, feeling of distress, guilt, depression, and anxiety. Humanizing behaviors were associated with improved recovery, well-being, and trust. "Perceived causes" of dehumanizing behaviors were linked to patient, ICU team, and healthcare system factors. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviors of ICU clinicians may cause patients and families to feel dehumanized when in the ICU. Negative behaviors are noticed by patients and families, possibly contributing to poor outcomes including mental health, recovery, and lack of trust in ICU teams. Supporting ICU clinicians may enable a more empathic environment and in turn more humanizing clinician-patient encounters.

Prevalence and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19 (COVID-D): a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To date, 750 000 patients with COVID-19 worldwide have required mechanical ventilation and thus are at high risk of acute brain dysfunction (coma and delirium). We aimed to investigate the prevalence of delirium and coma, and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19, to aid the development of strategies to mitigate delirium and associated sequelae. METHODS: This multicentre cohort study included 69 adult intensive care units (ICUs), across 14 countries. We included all patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to participating ICUs with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection before April 28, 2020. Patients who were moribund or had life-support measures withdrawn within 24 h of ICU admission, prisoners, patients with pre-existing mental illness, neurodegenerative disorders, congenital or acquired brain damage, hepatic coma, drug overdose, suicide attempt, or those who were blind or deaf were excluded. We collected de-identified data from electronic health records on patient demographics, delirium and coma assessments, and management strategies for a 21-day period. Additional data on ventilator support, ICU length of stay, and vital status was collected for a 28-day period. The primary outcome was to determine the prevalence of delirium and coma and to investigate any associated risk factors associated with development of delirium the next day. We also investigated predictors of number of days alive without delirium or coma. These outcomes were investigated using multivariable regression. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20 and April 28, 2020, 4530 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to 69 ICUs, of whom 2088 patients were included in the study cohort. The median age of patients was 64 years (IQR 54 to 71) with a median Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II of 40·0 (30·0 to 53·0). 1397 (66·9%) of 2088 patients were invasively mechanically ventilated on the day of ICU admission and 1827 (87·5%) were invasively mechanical ventilated at some point during hospitalisation. Infusion with sedatives while on mechanical ventilation was common: 1337 (64·0%) of 2088 patients were given benzodiazepines for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 12·0) and 1481 (70·9%) were given propofol for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 11·0). Median Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score while on invasive mechanical ventilation was -4 (-5 to -3). 1704 (81·6%) of 2088 patients were comatose for a median of 10·0 days (6·0 to 15·0) and 1147 (54·9%) were delirious for a median of 3·0 days (2·0 to 6·0). Mechanical ventilation, use of restraints, and benzodiazepine, opioid, and vasopressor infusions, and antipsychotics were each associated with a higher risk of delirium the next day (all p≤0·04), whereas family visitation (in person or virtual) was associated with a lower risk of delirium (p<0·0001). During the 21-day study period, patients were alive without delirium or coma for a median of 5·0 days (0·0 to 14·0). At baseline, older age, higher SAPS II scores, male sex, smoking or alcohol abuse, use of vasopressors on day 1, and invasive mechanical ventilation on day 1 were independently associated with fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma (all p<0·01). 601 (28·8%) of 2088 patients died within 28 days of admission, with most of those deaths occurring in the ICU. INTERPRETATION: Acute brain dysfunction was highly prevalent and prolonged in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Benzodiazepine use and lack of family visitation were identified as modifiable risk factors for delirium, and thus these data present an opportunity to reduce acute brain dysfunction in patients with COVID-19. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.