Recovery following discharge from intensive care: What do patients think is helpful and what services are missing?

BACKGROUND: Recovery following critical illness is complex due to the many challenges patients face which influence their long-term outcomes. We explored patients' views about facilitators of recovery after critical illness which could be used to inform the components and timing of specific rehabilitation interventions. AIMS: To explore the views of patients after discharge from an intensive care unit (ICU) about their recovery and factors that facilitated recovery, and to determine additional services that patients felt were missing during their recovery. METHODS: Qualitative study involving individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews at six months (n = 11) and twelve months (n = 10). Written, informed consent was obtained. [Ethics approval 17/NI/0115]. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using template analysis. FINDINGS: Template analysis revealed four core themes: (1) Physical activity and function; (2) Recovery of cognitive and emotional function; (3) Facilitators to recovery; and (4) Gaps in healthcare services. CONCLUSION: Patient reported facilitators to recovery include support and guidance from others and self-motivation and goal setting, equipment for mobility and use of technology. Barriers include a lack of follow up services, exercise rehabilitation, peer support and personal feedback. Patients perceived that access to specific healthcare services was fragmented and where services were unavailable this contributed to slower or poorer quality of recovery. ICU patient recover could be facilitated by a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention that includes patient-directed strategies and health care services.

Ocular Injury Associated With Prone Positioning in Adult Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Prone positioning during the COVID-19 pandemic has become increasingly used as an adjunct to increase oxygenation in critical care patients. It is associated with an adverse event profile. This study sought to investigate the occurrence of ocular injuries reported in prone versus supine groups in adult critical care. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library were searched. The search period was January 1, 1990, to July 1, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials were included, with 2,247 patients. Twenty-eight events were recorded in 3 trials (174 patients) and no events in the other 8 trials (2,073 patients). The rates of eye injury were 5 events in 1,158 patients (1.30%) and 13 events in 1,089 patients (1.19%) in the prone and supine groups, respectively, which were reduced to 2 of 1,158 patients (0.17%) and 2 of 1,089 patients (0.18%), respectively, when reports of eye or eyelid edema were removed. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences between groups with (an OR of 1.40 (95% CI: 0.37-5.27) and without (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.11-5.73) reported edema. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the rate of reported ocular injury between prone and supine critical care groups. These rates remain higher than the incidence reported during general anesthesia. There is a need for studies in critical care settings in which ocular injury is an end-point and which include extended patient follow-up.