Clinician- and Patient-Identified Solutions to Reduce the Fragmentation of Post-ICU Care in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Critical care survivors experience multiple care transitions, with no formal follow-up care pathway. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the potential solutions to improve the communication between treating teams and integration of care following an ICU admission, from the perspective of patients, their caregivers, intensivists, and general practitioners (GPs) from diverse socioeconomic areas? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study included a qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with intensivists, GPs, and patients and caregivers. Framework analysis was used to analyze data and to identify solutions to improve the integration of care following hospital discharge. Patients were previously mechanically ventilated for > 24 h in the ICU and had access to a video-enabled device. Clinicians were recruited from hospital networks and a state-wide GP network. RESULTS: Forty-six interviews with clinicians, patients, and caregivers were completed (15 intensivists, 8 GPs, 15 patients, and 8 caregivers). Three higher level feedback loops were identified that comprised 10 themes. Feedback loop 1 was an ICU and primary care collaboration. It included the following: (1) developing collaborative relationships between the ICU and primary care; (2) providing interprofessional education and resources to support primary care; and (3) improving role clarity for patient follow-up care. Feedback loop 2 was developing mechanisms for improved communication across the care continuum. It included: (4) timely, concise information-sharing with primary care on post-ICU recovery; (5) survivorship-focused information-sharing across the continuum of care; (6) empowering patients and caregivers in self-management; and (7) creation of a care coordinator role for survivors. Feedback loop 3 was learning from post-ICU outcomes to improve future care. It included: (8) developing comprehensive post-ICU care pathways; (9) enhancing support for patients following a hospital stay; and (10) integration of post-ICU outcomes within the ICU to improve clinician morale and understanding. INTERPRETATION: Practical solutions to enhance the quality of survivorship for critical care survivors and their caregivers were identified. These themes are mapped to a novel conceptual model that includes key feedback loops for health system improvements and foci for future interventional trials to improve ICU survivorship outcomes.

In-person peer support for critical care survivors: The ICU REcovery Solutions cO-Led through surVivor Engagement (ICURESOLVE) pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peer support is a promising intervention to mitigate post-ICU disability, however there is a paucity of rigorously designed studies. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish feasibility of an in-person, co-designed, peer-support model. METHODS: Prospective, randomised, adaptive, single-centre pilot trial with blinded outcome assessment, conducted at a university-affiliated hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Intensive care unit survivors (and their nominated caregiver, where survivor and caregiver are referred to as a dyad), >18 years of age, able to speak and understand English and participate in phone surveys, were eligible. Participants were randomised to the peer-support model (six sessions, fortnightly) or usual care (no follow-up or targeted information). Two sequential models were piloted: 1. Early (2-3 weeks post hospital discharge) 2. Later (4-6 weeks post hospital discharge). Primary outcome was feasibility of implementation measured by recruitment, intervention attendance, and outcome completion. Secondary outcomes included post-traumatic stress and social support. RESULTS: Of the 231 eligible patients, 80 participants were recruited. In the early model we recruited 38 participants (28 patients, 10 carers; 18 singles, 10 dyads), with an average (standard deviation) age of 60 (18) years; 55 % were female. Twenty-two participants (58 %) were randomised to intervention. Participants in the early intervention model attended a median (interquartile range) of 0 (0-1) sessions (total 24 sessions), with 53% (n = 20) completing the main secondary outcome of interest (Impact of Event Scale) at the baseline and 37 % (n = 14) at the follow-up. For the later model we recruited 42 participants (32 patients, 10 carers; 22 singles, 10 dyads), with an average (standard deviation) age of 60.4 (15.4) years; 50 % were female. Twenty-one participants (50 %) were randomised to intervention. The later intervention model attended a median (interquartile range) of 1 (0-5) sessions (total: 44 sessions), with the main secondary outcome impact of events scale (IES-R) completed by 41 (98 %) participants at baseline and 29 (69 %) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, a peer-support model that required in-person attendance delivered in a later posthospital phase of recovery appeared more feasible than an early model. Further research should investigate alternative modes of intervention delivery to improve feasibility (ACTRN12621000737831).

Participation in genetic screening: testing different outreach methods across a diverse hospital system based patient population.

Introduction: Genomics has the potential to transform medicine by identifying genetic risk factors that predispose people to certain illnesses. Use of genetic screening is rapidly expanding and shifting towards screening all patients regardless of known risk factors, but research is limited on the success of broad population-level outreach for genetic testing and the effectiveness of different outreach methods across diverse populations. In this study, we tested the effectiveness of Digital Only (emailing and texting) and Brochure Plus Digital (mailed brochure, emailing, and texting) outreach to encourage a diverse patient population to participate in a large hospital system's whole genome sequencing program. Methods: Disproportionate stratified sampling was used to create a study population more demographically diverse than the eligible population and response rates were analyzed overall and by demographics to understand the effectiveness of different outreach strategies. Results: 7.5% of all eligible patients enrolled in the program. While approximately 70% of patients invited to complete genetic testing identified in their EHR as being Hispanic, Black or African America, Asian, or another non-White race, these patients generally enrolled at lower rates than the overall population. Other underrepresented groups had higher enrollment rates including people with Medicaid coverage (8.7%) and those residing in rural areas (10.6%). We found no significant difference in enrollment rates between our Digital-Only and our Brochure Plus Digital outreach approaches in the overall population, but enrollment rates were significantly higher for Asian patients and patients who resided in rural areas in the Brochure Plus Digital group. Across both outreach approaches, links provided in emails were most commonly used for enrollment. Discussion: Our study reveals expected enrollment rates for proactive outreach by a hospital system for genetic testing in a diverse population. As more hospital systems are adopting population-scale genetic testing, these findings can inform future outreach efforts to recruit patients for genetic testing including those patients traditionally underrepresented in genomics.

Fragmentation of care between intensive and primary care settings and opportunities for improvement.

PURPOSE: To explore the gaps in care provided across the transitions from the intensive care unit (ICU) to primary care, in order to improve post-ICU care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with three participant groups: intensivists, general practitioners (GPs) and patients and carers with framework analysis of textual data were used to investigate experiences of transitions of care post-ICU. Participants were purposively sampled for diversity. Eligible patients were adults, mechanically ventilated for >24 hours, with access to a video-enabled device. Exclusion criteria were non-English speaking and any cognitive/neurological limitation precluding interview participation. RESULTS: A total of 46 interviews (15 patients, 8 caregivers, 15 intensivists and 8 GPs) were completed. Eight themes were identified, and categorised into three healthcare tiers. Tier 1, health system factors: (1) fragmentation of care; (2) communication gaps; (3) limited awareness and recognition of issues beyond the ICU; (4) lack of a specialised ICU follow-up pathway; Tier 2, clinician factors: (5) relationships among ICU, hospitals, GPs and patients and carers; (6) need for clinician role definition and clarity in ICU follow-up; Tier 3, patient and carer factors: (7) patient autonomy and self-actualisation and (8) the evolving caregiver role. A conceptual model was developed, highlighting bidirectional feedback loops between hospital and primary care. CONCLUSION: This study identified gaps in care between ICU discharge and reintegration with primary care from the lived experience of patients, caregivers, intensivists and GPs. These data provide foci for future interventional research to improve the integration of care for this vulnerable and underserved cohort.

Physical therapy and nutrition therapy: synergistic, antagonistic, or independent interventions?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Physical therapy and nutrition therapy have predominantly been studied separately in the critically ill, however in clinical practice are often delivered in combination. It is important to understand how these interventions interact. This review will summarize the current science - where they are potentially synergistic, antagonistic, or independent interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Only six studies were identified within the ICU setting that combined physical therapy and nutrition therapy. The majority of these were randomized controlled trials with modest sample sizes. There was an indication of benefit in the preservation of femoral muscle mass and short-term physical quality of life - particularly with high-protein delivery and resistance exercise, in patients who were predominantly mechanically ventilated patients, with an ICU length of stay of approximately 4-7 days (varied across studies). Although these benefits did not extend to other outcomes such as reduced length of ventilation, ICU or hospital admission. No recent trials were identified that combined physical therapy and nutrition therapy in post-ICU settings and is an area that warrants investigation. SUMMARY: The combination of physical therapy and nutrition therapy might be synergistic when evaluated within the ICU setting. However, more careful work is required to understand the physiological challenges in the delivery of these interventions. Combining these interventions in post-ICU settings is currently under-investigated, but may be important to understand any potential benefits to patient longitudinal recovery.