Anxiety and depression following critical illness: A comparison of the recovery trajectories of patients and caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Following critical illness, family members are often required to adopt caregiving responsibilities. Anxiety and depression are common long term problems for both patients and caregivers. However, at present, it is not known how the trajectories of these symptoms compare between patients and caregivers. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the trajectories of anxiety and depression in patients and caregivers in the first year following critical illness. METHODS: This study analyses data from a prospective multicentre cohort study of patients and caregivers who underwent a complex recovery intervention following critical illness. Paired patients and caregivers were recruited. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was used to evaluate symptoms of anxiety and depression at three timepoints: baseline; 3 months; and 12 months in both patient and caregivers. A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to evaluate the trajectories of these symptoms over the first year following critical illness. RESULTS: 115 paired patients and caregivers, who received the complex recovery intervention, were recruited. There was no significant difference in the relative trajectory of depressive symptoms between patients and caregivers in the first 12 months following critical illness (p = 0.08). There was, however, a significant difference in the trajectory of anxiety symptoms between patients and caregivers during this time period (p = 0.04), with caregivers seeing reduced resolution of symptoms in comparison to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Following critical illness, symptoms of anxiety and depression are common in both patients and caregivers. The trajectory of symptoms of depression was similar between caregivers and patients; however, there was a significantly different recovery trajectory in symptoms of anxiety. Further research is required to understand the recovery pathway of caregivers in order to design effective interventions.

Evaluation of a health and social care programme to improve outcomes following critical illness: a multicentre study.

RATIONALE: At present, clinicians aiming to support patients through the challenges after critical care have limited evidence to base interventions. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate a multicentre integrated health and social care intervention for critical care survivors. A process evaluation assessed factors influencing the programme implementation. METHODS: This study evaluated the impact of the Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment (InS:PIRE) programme. We compared patients who attended this programme with a usual care cohort from the same time period across nine hospital sites in Scotland. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured via the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level instrument, at 12 months post hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy, depression, anxiety and pain. RESULTS: 137 patients who received the InS:PIRE intervention completed outcome measures at 12 months. In the usual care cohort, 115 patients completed the measures. The two cohorts had similar baseline demographics. After adjustment, there was a significant absolute increase in HRQoL in the intervention cohort in relation to the usual care cohort (0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.20, p=0.01). Patients in the InS:PIRE cohort also reported self-efficacy scores that were 7.7% higher (2.32 points higher, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.31, p=0.02), fewer symptoms of depression (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.76, p=0.01) and similar symptoms of anxiety (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13, p=0.11). There was no significant difference in overall pain experience. Key facilitators for implementation were: integration with inpatient care, organisational engagement, flexibility to service inclusion; key barriers were: funding, staff availability and venue availability. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre evaluation of a health and social care programme designed for survivors of critical illness appears to show benefit at 12 months following hospital discharge.

A multicentre evaluation exploring the impact of an integrated health and social care intervention for the caregivers of ICU survivors.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers and family members of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) survivors can face emotional problems following patient discharge from hospital. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a multi-centre integrated health and social care intervention, on caregiver and family member outcomes. METHODS: This study evaluated the impact of the Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment (InS:PIRE) programme across 9 sites in Scotland. InS:PIRE is an integrated health and social care intervention. We compared caregivers who attended this programme with a contemporary control group of ICU caregivers (usual care cohort), who did not attend. RESULTS: The primary outcome was anxiety measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 12 months post-hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included depression, carer strain and clinical insomnia. A total of 170 caregivers had data available at 12 months for inclusion in this study; 81 caregivers attended the InS:PIRE intervention and completed outcome measures at 12 months post-hospital discharge. In the usual care cohort of caregivers, 89 completed measures. The two cohorts had similar baseline demographics. After adjustment, those caregivers who attended InS:PIRE demonstrated a significant improvement in symptoms of anxiety (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02), carer strain (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.16-0.98 p = 0.04) and clinical insomnia (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.77 p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in symptoms of depression at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre evaluation has shown that caregivers who attended an integrated health and social care intervention reported improved emotional health and less symptoms of insomnia, 12 months after the delivery of the intervention.

The relationship between pain, anxiety and depression in patients with post-intensive care syndrome.

PURPOSE: Survivors of critical illness frequently experience long-term symptoms including physical symptoms such as pain and emotional symptoms such as anxiety and depression. These symptoms frequently co-exist, however, at present there is limited understanding of these relationships. The aim of this study was to quantify the relationship between pain, anxiety and depression across the recovery trajectory. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of data from a multi-centre, prospective, cohort study which followed-up patients recovering from critical illness. Data was available at multiple time points and for 3 distinct cohorts. Structural equation modelling was used to investigate the relationship between outcome measures of pain, anxiety and depression. RESULTS: Data from 414 patients was analysed. Pain was significantly associated with both anxiety and depression in all cohorts and at all time points sampled. Path coefficients for the covariances between pain and depression ranged between 0.39 and 0.72 (p < 0.01). Path coefficients for the covariances between pain and anxiety ranged between 0.39 and 0.65 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pain, anxiety and depression are highly correlated in survivors of critical illness. Pharmacological treatments for pain management may be ineffective alone and further research is required to assess interventions targeting these symptoms in combination.

Evaluating pain in survivors of critical illness: the correlation between the EQ-5D-5L and the Brief Pain Inventory.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is a common and debilitating symptom in survivors of critical illness. The 'Core Outcome Set for Survivors of Acute Respiratory Failure' proposes that the pain and discomfort question of the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) could be used to assess pain in this group, however, it was recognised that further research is required to evaluate how this single question compares to other more detailed pain tools. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between the pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) in survivors of critical illness. METHODS: This study retrospectively analysed paired EQ-5D-5L and BPI data extracted from a prospective, multicentre study evaluating the impact of a critical care recovery programme. 172 patients who received a complex recovery intervention and 108 patients who did not receive this intervention were included. Data were available for the intervention cohort at multiple time points, namely, baseline, 3 months and 12 months. While, data were available for the usual care cohort at a single time point (12 months). We assessed the correlation between the pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L and two separate components of the BPI: severity of pain and pain interference. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients comparing the pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L and the BPI pain severity score ranged between 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.80) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.86). Correlation coefficients comparing the pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L and the BPI pain interference score ranged between 0.71 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.79) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.88) across the various time points. CONCLUSIONS: The pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L correlates moderately well with a more detailed pain tool and may help to streamline assessments in survivorship studies. More in-depth tools may be of use where pain is the primary study outcome or a patient-reported concern.

Long-term outcomes following severe COVID-19 infection: a propensity matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data describing the long-term outcomes of severe COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the long-term psychosocial and physical consequences of severe COVID-19 for patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre observational cohort study; between 3 and 7 months posthospital discharge, patients who had been admitted to critical care due to severe COVID-19 were invited to an established recovery service. Standardised questionnaires concerning emotional, physical and social recovery, including information on employment, were completed by patients. Using propensity score matching, we explored outcomes between patients admitted to critical care with and without COVID-19, using data from the same recovery programme. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and December 2020, 93 patients who had been admitted to critical with COVID-19 participated. Emotional dysfunction was common: 46.2% of patients had symptoms of anxiety and 34.4% symptoms of depression. At follow-up 53.7% of previously employed patients had returned to employment; there was a significant difference in return to employment across the socio-economic gradient, with lower numbers of patients from the most deprived areas returning to employment (p=0.03). 91 (97.8%) COVID-19 patients were matched with 91 non-COVID-19 patients. There were no significant differences in any measured outcomes between the two cohorts. INTERPRETATION: Emotional and social problems are common in survivors of severe COVID-19 infection. Coordinated rehabilitation is required to ensure patients make an optimal recovery.

Management of patients taking herbal medicines in the perioperative period: a survey of practice and policies within Anaesthetic Departments in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients commonly take a combination of prescription drugs and herbal medicines. Often these alternative products have known pharmacological effects which may interact with drugs given perioperatively, resulting in adverse events. They can also cause physiological fluctuations which may influence the choice of anaesthetic technique used. This has been acknowledged by a number of national bodies that recommend eliciting a history of herbal medicine use preoperatively. This survey attempted to ascertain whether this guidance had been observed and turned into local policy. We also attempted to determine what advice patients were being given. METHODS: Three hundred and twenty-one questionnaires were sent to all United Kingdom hospitals with an Anaesthetic Department in September 2006. Reminders were then sent to those recipients who did not respond. RESULTS: Replies were received from 233 (72.6%) anaesthetic departments. Seventeen (7.3%) departments have a perioperative herbal medicine policy in place and a further six had plans to develop one. The majority (98.3%) of departments did not have a specific section for documenting herbal medicine use on their an aesthetic records. Of the departments that held pre-assessment clinics, 34 (15.7%) asked patients routinely about herbal medicine use, and the advice given regarding the use of herbal medicines was varied, and generally, not in accordance with existing guidelines. CONCLUSION: Anaesthetic departments in the United Kingdom are not currently following national advice regarding herbal medicine use. There is no coherence in the advice being offered to patients in the perioperative period, which may reflect the lack of information available. National guidelines may help clinicians understand the issues and adopt best practice.