Long term opioid use after burn injury: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have survive a burn injury might be at risk of opioid dependence after discharge. This study examined the use of opioids in patients who suffer burn injury and explored factors associated with persistent opioid use after hospital discharge. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared adults admitted with a burn injury from 2009 to 2019 with two matched comparison cohorts from the general population and adults with a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Pre-admission prescription opioid use was determined, and a multivariable negative binomial regression analysis used to explore post-discharge opioid use. RESULTS: A total of 7147 burn patients were matched with 6810 pancreatitis patients and with 28 184 individuals from the general population. Pre-admission opioid use was higher in the burn and pancreatitis cohorts (29% and 40%, respectively) compared with the general population (17%). Opioid use increased in both burn and pancreatitis cohorts after discharge (41% and 53%, respectively), although patients with pancreatitis were at even higher risk of increased opioid use in an adjusted analysis (incidence rate ratio 1.43). Female sex, lower socioeconomic status, ICU admission, pre-injury opioid use, and a history of excess alcohol use were all associated with an increase in opioid prescriptions after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid use is high in those admitted with a burn injury or acute pancreatitis when compared with the general population, increasing further after hospital discharge. Female sex and socioeconomic deprivation are among factors that make increased opioid use more likely, although this phenomenon seems even more pronounced in those with acute pancreatitis compared with burn injuries.

Postoperative outcomes and identification of risk factors for complications after emergency intestinal stoma surgery - a multicentre retrospective study.

AIM: Approximately 4000 patients in the UK have an emergency intestinal stoma formed each year. Stoma-related complications (SRCs) are heterogeneous but have previously been subcategorized into early or late SRCs, with early SRCs generally occurring within 30 days postoperatively. Early SRCs include skin excoriation, stoma necrosis and high output, while late SRCs include parastomal hernia, retraction and prolapse. There is a paucity of research on specific risk factors within the emergency cohort for development of SRCs. This paper aims to describe the incidence of SRCs after emergency intestinal surgery and to identify potential risk factors for SRCs within this cohort. METHOD: Consecutive patients undergoing emergency formation of an intestinal stoma (colostomy, ileostomy or jejunostomy) were identified prospectively from across three acute hospital sites over a 3-year period from the ELLSA (Emergency Laparotomy and Laparoscopic Scottish Audit) database. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 year. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors for early and late SRCs. RESULTS: A total of 455 patients were included (median follow-up 19 months, median age 64 years, male:female 0.52, 56.7% ileostomies). Early SRCs were experienced by 54.1% of patients, while 51% experienced late SRCs. A total of 219 patients (48.1%) had their stoma sited preoperatively. Risk factors for early SRCs included end ileostomy formation [OR 3.51 (2.24-5.49), p < 0.001], while preoperative stoma siting was found to be protective [OR 0.53 (0.35-0.83), p = 0.005]. Patient obesity [OR 3.11 (1.92-5.03), p < 0.001] and reoperation for complications following elective surgery [OR 4.18 (2.01-8.69), p < 0.001] were risk factors for late SRCs. CONCLUSION: Stoma-related complications after emergency surgery are common. Preoperative stoma siting is the only truly modifiable risk factor to reduce SRCs, and further research should be aimed at methods of improving the frequency and accuracy of this in the emergency setting.

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.

Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Outcomes in Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Socioeconomic status is well established as a key determinant of inequalities in health outcomes. Existing literature examining the impact of socioeconomic status on outcomes in critical care has produced inconsistent findings. Our objective was to synthesize the available evidence on the association between socioeconomic status and outcomes in critical care. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE was undertaken on September 13, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Observational cohort studies of adults assessing the association between socioeconomic status and critical care outcomes including mortality, length of stay, and functional outcomes were included. Two independent reviewers assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts against eligibility and quality criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Details of study methodology, population, exposure measures, and outcomes were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-eight studies met eligibility criteria for systematic review. Twenty-three studies reporting mortality to less than or equal to 30 days following critical care admission, and eight reporting length of stay, were included in meta-analysis. Random-effects pooled analysis showed that lower socioeconomic status was associated with higher mortality at less than or equal to 30 days following critical care admission, with pooled odds ratio of 1.13 (95% CIs, 1.05-1.22). Meta-analysis of ICU length of stay demonstrated no significant difference between socioeconomic groups. Socioeconomic status may also be associated with functional status and discharge destination following ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Lower socioeconomic status was associated with higher mortality following admission to critical care.

Clinician perceptions of the impact of ICU family visiting restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international investigation.

PURPOSE: To guarantee the safety of the public, clinicians and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital visits were severely restricted internationally. There are limited data on the precise impact of these visiting restrictions on Intensive Care Unit clinicians. Our objectives therefore were to explore the impact of family visitation restrictions on clinicians and care delivery and describe innovation alongside areas for potential improvement. METHODS: A qualitative approach using focus groups was employed. We recruited members of the multi-disciplinary team from Spain, France and the UK. Framework analysis was used to synthesize and interpret data. RESULTS: In total, 28 staff from multiple international sites contributed to data across six focus groups: 12 from the UK, 9 from France and 7 from Spain. In relation to the key aims, we derived four themes: the emergence of new technologies, relationships and rapport establishment, communication challenges and end-of-life care provision. Across each theme, the overarching concepts of clinician emotional exhaustion and emotional distress emerged alongside the negative impact on job satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The impact of COVID-19 family visitation restrictions is far reaching. Future research should examine the wider impact of family presence in the ICU.

Factors Associated With New Analgesic Requirements Following Critical Illness.

BACKGROUND: Chronic opioid use represents a significant burden to global healthcare with adverse long-term outcomes. Elevated patient reported pain levels and analgesic prescriptions have been reported following discharge from critical care. We describe analgesic requirements following discharge from hospital and identify if a critical care admission is a significant factor for stronger analgesic prescriptions. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study identified patients in the UK Biobank with a registered admission to any UK hospital between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 and information on prescriptions drawn both prior to and following hospital discharge. Two matched cohorts were created from the dataset: critical care patients and hospital patients admitted without a critical care encounter. Outcomes were analgesic requirements following hospital discharge and factors associated with increased analgesic prescriptions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with prescriptions from higher steps on the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder. RESULTS: In total, 660 formed the total study population. Strong opioid prescriptions following discharge were significantly higher in the critical care cohort (P value <.001). Critical care admission (OR = 1.45) and increasing Townsend deprivation (OR = 1.04) index were significantly associated with increasing strength of analgesic prescriptions following discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care patients require stronger analgesic prescriptions in the 12 months following hospital discharge. Patients from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation may also be associated with increased analgesic requirements. Multidisciplinary support is required for patients who may be at risk of chronic opioid use and could be delivered within critical care recovery programs.

The impact of intestinal stoma formation on patient quality of life after emergency surgery-A systematic review.

AIM: Elective stoma formation has a negative effect on patient quality of life (QoL), with a potential detrimental impact on body image, confidence and social functioning being shown previously. However, the impact of emergency stoma formation on QoL has been explored less frequently. This systematic review aims to synthesize all available literature exploring QoL via patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: A search strategy was implemented on 24 November 2022 across Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Library database after registration on PROSPERO (CRD42022370606). Studies were included if they used a standardized patient-reported outcome measure, had more than five emergency stoma patients, age > 18 years and were fully published in English. Two of three independent researchers screened articles, extracted data and performed quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: In all, 1775 articles were screened, with 16 included in the systematic review. This included 1868 emergency stoma patients (men:women 0.53; median age 64.6 years) followed up for a median of 12 months. Patients who had a Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis had poorer QoL than those who underwent primary anastomosis. There was a negligible difference in QoL between those who had a colonic stent for obstructing colorectal cancer compared with those who underwent emergency stoma formation. Female sex, end stoma formation and ileostomy formation were all identified as risk factors for poorer QoL. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing emergency stoma surgery have marginally poorer QoL compared with those undergoing similar procedures without stoma formation. Further work is required to identify risk factors associated with this and also to compare QoL after stoma reversal.

Patient-reported impact of emergency laparotomy on employment and health status 1 year after surgery.

BACKGROUND: Whilst there has been significant improvement in mortality outcomes after emergency laparotomy, there is little information on longer term outcomes in the year after discharge. The main aim of the study was to assess the impact that an emergency laparotomy has on patients' and employment and health status 1 year after surgery. METHODS: This study was a questionnaire study conducted in a single centre district general hospital of patients who had undergone an emergency laparotomy between October 2015 and December 2016. Patients were included according to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit criteria. At screening, patients who were alive at 1 year and had the capacity to consent were approached between January and December 2017. Patients underwent a researcher-led telephone interview using a semi-structured questionnaire to assess the impact of emergency laparotomy on overall, general and physical health (Glasgow Benefit Inventory) as well as employment status. The symptoms that patients experienced and their impact were also recorded. RESULTS: Forty-two patients responded to and completed the questionnaire. Just over one-third of patients experienced a deterioration in their general or physical health and 21% of patients experienced a change in employment. Factors which significantly impacted on health status were stoma issues, postoperative morbidity and a change in employment (p < 0.05). The main symptoms which patients identified as being troublesome were altered bowel habit and stoma issues with a resultant social and psychological impact. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of patients experienced a deterioration in their psychosocial and physical health status as well as a change in employment during the first-year postsurgery. Larger research studies are required to define the impact of emergency laparotomy on patients in the longer term and more research is needed to improve perioperative rehabilitation in the postoperative period to ensure optimal functional gain after technically successful surgery.

Investigation of frailty markers including a novel biomarker panel in emergency laparotomy: protocol of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency laparotomy (EmLAP) is one of the commonest emergency operations performed in the United Kingdom (approximately 30, 000 laparotomies annually). These potentially high-risk procedures can be life changing with frail patients and/ or older adults (≥ 65 years) having the poorest outcomes, including mortality. There is no gold standard of frailty assessment and no clinical chemical biomarkers existing in practice. Early detection of subclinical changes or deficits at the molecular level are essential in improving our understanding of the biology of frailty and ultimately improving patient outcomes. This study aims primarily to compare preoperative frailty markers, including a blood-based biomarker panel, in their ability to predict 30 and 90-day mortality post-EmLAP. The secondary aim is to analyse the influence of perioperative frailty on morbidity and quality of life post-EmLAP. METHODS: A prospective single centred observational study will be conducted on 150 patients ≥ 40 years of age that undergo EmLAP. Patients will be included according to the established NELA (National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) criteria. The variables collected include demographics, co-morbidities, polypharmacy, place of residence, indication and type of surgery (as per NELA criteria) and prognostic NELA score. Frailty will be assessed using: a blood sample for ultra-high performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry analysis; preoperative CT abdomen pelvis (sarcopenia) and Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Patients will be followed up for 90 days. Variables collected include blood samples (at post operative day 1, 7, 30 and 90), place of residence on discharge, morbidity, mortality and quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L). The frailty markers will be compared between groups of frail (CFS ≥ 4) and non-frail using statistical methods such as regression model and adjusted for appropriate confounding factors. DISCUSSION: This study hypothesises that frailty level changes following EmLAP in frail and non- frail patients, irrespective of age. We propose that non- frail patients will have better survival rates and report better quality of life compared to the frail. By studying the changes in metabolites/ biomarkers in these patients and correlate them to frailty status pre-surgery, this highly novel approach will develop new knowledge of frailty and define a new area of clinical biomolecular research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05416047. Registered on 13/06/2022 (retrospectively registered).

Patient and Caregiver-Derived Health Service Improvements for Better Critical Care Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: To engage critical care end-users (survivors and caregivers) to describe their emotions and experiences across their recovery trajectory, and elicit their ideas and solutions for health service improvements to improve the ICU recovery experience. DESIGN: End-user engagement as part of a qualitative design using the Framework Analysis method. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine's THRIVE international collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support groups). SUBJECTS: Patients and caregivers following critical illness and identified through the collaboratives. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six interviews were conducted. The following themes were identified: 1) Emotions and experiences of patients-"Loss of former self; Experiences of disability and adaptation"; 2) Emotions and experiences of caregivers-"Emotional impacts, adopting new roles, and caregiver burden; Influence of gender roles; Adaptation, adjustment, recalibration"; and 3) Patient and caregiver-generated solutions to improve recovery across the arc of care-"Family-targeted education; Expectation management; Rehabilitation for patients and caregivers; Peer support groups; Reconnecting with ICU post-discharge; Access to community-based supports post-discharge; Psychological support; Education of issues of ICU survivorship for health professionals; Support across recovery trajectory." Themes were mapped to a previously published recovery framework (Timing It Right) that captures patient and caregiver experiences and their support needs across the phases of care from the event/diagnosis to adaptation post-discharge home. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers reported a range of emotions and experiences across the recovery trajectory from ICU to home. Through end-user engagement strategies many potential solutions were identified that could be implemented by health services and tested to support the delivery of higher-quality care for ICU survivors and their caregivers that extend from tertiary to primary care settings.

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.

Transitions of Care After Critical Illness-Challenges to Recovery and Adaptive Problem Solving.

OBJECTIVES: Investigate the challenges experienced by survivors of critical illness and their caregivers across the transitions of care from intensive care to community, and the potential problem-solving strategies used to navigate these challenges. DESIGN: Qualitative design-data generation via interviews and data analysis via the framework analysis method. SETTING: Patients and caregivers from three continents, identified through the Society of Critical Care Medicine's THRIVE international collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support groups). SUBJECTS: Patients and caregivers following critical illness. INTERVENTIONS: Nil. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From 86 interviews (66 patients, 20 caregivers), we identified the following major themes: 1) Challenges for patients-interacting with the health system and gaps in care; managing others' expectations of illness and recovery. 2) Challenges for caregivers-health system shortfalls and inadequate communication; lack of support for caregivers. 3) Patient and caregiver-driven problem solving across the transitions of care-personal attributes, resources, and initiative; receiving support and helping others; and acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors and caregivers experienced a range of challenges across the transitions of care. There were distinct and contrasting themes related to the caregiver experience. Survivors and caregivers used comparable problem-solving strategies to navigate the challenges encountered across the transitions of care.

Factors associated with intensive care admission in patients with lung cancer: a population-based observational study of 26, 731 patients.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer related death worldwide and survival is poor. Patients with lung cancer may develop a critical illness, but it is unclear what features are associated with an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, population-based study of linked cancer registration, ICU, hospital discharge and mortality data described the factors associated with ICU admission in patients with lung cancer. The cohort comprised all incident cases of adult lung cancer diagnosed between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2009 in the West of Scotland, UK, who were subsequently admitted to an ICU within 2 years of cancer diagnosis. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with admission. RESULTS: 26,731 incident cases of lung cancer were diagnosed with 398 (1.5%) patients admitted to an ICU. Patients were most commonly admitted with respiratory conditions and there was a high rate of invasive mechanical ventilation. ICU, in-hospital and six-month survival were 58.5, 42.0 and 31.2%, respectively. Surgical treatment of lung cancer increased the odds of ICU admission (OR 7.23 (5.14-10.2)). Odds of admission to ICU were reduced with older age (75-80 years OR 0.69 (0.49-0.94), > 80 years OR 0.21 (0.12-0.37)), female gender (OR 0.73 (0.59-0.90)) and radiotherapy (OR 0.54 (0.39-0.73)) or chemotherapy treatment (OR 0.52 (0.38-0.70)). CONCLUSION: 1.5% of patients diagnosed with lung cancer are admitted to an ICU but both short term and long term survival was poor. Factors associated with ICU admission included age < 75 years, male gender and surgical treatment of cancer.

Understanding what matters to patients in critical care: An exploratory evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of person-centred care is a key priority for managers, policy makers, and clinicians in health care. The delivery person-centred care in critical care is challenging because of competing demands. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this quality improvement project was to understand what mattered to patients on a daily basis within the critical care environment. It aimed to understand personal goals and what patients needed to improve their experience. This paper reports on the outputs from this quality improvement project. DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS: During each daily ward round, patients were asked "what matters to you today?" Outputs from this were entered into the Daily Goals Sheet, which is utilized for every patient in our critical care unit or in the nursing notes. Using Framework Analysis, prevalent themes were extracted from the patient statements documented. RESULTS: A total of 196 unique patients were included in this analysis alongside 592 patient statements. Four broad themes were generated: medical outcomes and information, the critical care environment, personal care, and family and caregivers. CONCLUSION: The analysis of the data from this quality improvement project has demonstrated that, by asking a simple question within the context of a ward round, care can be enhanced and personalized and long-term outcomes potentially improved. More research is required to understand what the optimal methods are of implementing these requests. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Two main recommendations from practice emerged from this quality improvement project: asking patients "what matters to you?" on a daily basis may help support the humanization of the critical care environment, and visiting and access by families must be discussed with patients to ensure this is appropriate for their needs.

Models of Peer Support to Remediate Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: A Report Developed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive International Peer Support Collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: Patients and caregivers can experience a range of physical, psychologic, and cognitive problems following critical care discharge. The use of peer support has been proposed as an innovative support mechanism. DESIGN: We sought to identify technical, safety, and procedural aspects of existing operational models of peer support, among the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive Peer Support Collaborative. We also sought to categorize key distinctions between these models and elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementation. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Seventeen Thrive sites from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were represented by a range of healthcare professionals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Via an iterative process of in-person and email/conference calls, members of the Collaborative defined the key areas on which peer support models could be defined and compared, collected detailed self-reports from all sites, reviewed the information, and identified clusters of models. Barriers and challenges to implementation of peer support models were also documented. Within the Thrive Collaborative, six general models of peer support were identified: community based, psychologist-led outpatient, models-based within ICU follow-up clinics, online, groups based within ICU, and peer mentor models. The most common barriers to implementation were recruitment to groups, personnel input and training, sustainability and funding, risk management, and measuring success. CONCLUSIONS: A number of different models of peer support are currently being developed to help patients and families recover and grow in the postcritical care setting.

Enablers and Barriers to Implementing ICU Follow-Up Clinics and Peer Support Groups Following Critical Illness: The Thrive Collaboratives.

OBJECTIVES: Data are lacking regarding implementation of novel strategies such as follow-up clinics and peer support groups, to reduce the burden of postintensive care syndrome. We sought to discover enablers that helped hospital-based clinicians establish post-ICU clinics and peer support programs, and identify barriers that challenged them. DESIGN: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data. SETTING: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents. SUBJECTS: Clinicians from 21 sites. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten enablers and nine barriers to implementation of "ICU follow-up clinics" were described. A key enabler to generate support for clinics was providing insight into the human experience of survivorship, to obtain interest from hospital administrators. Significant barriers included patient and family lack of access to clinics and clinic funding. Nine enablers and five barriers to the implementation of "peer support groups" were identified. Key enablers included developing infrastructure to support successful operationalization of this complex intervention, flexibility about when peer support should be offered, belonging to the international learning collaborative. Significant barriers related to limited attendance by patients and families due to challenges in creating awareness, and uncertainty about who might be appropriate to attend and target in advertising. CONCLUSIONS: Several enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups should be taken into account and leveraged to improve ICU recovery. Among the most important enablers are motivated clinician leaders who persist to find a path forward despite obstacles.

Peer Support in Critical Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Identifying solutions to improve recovery after critical illness is a pressing problem. We systematically evaluated studies of peer support as a potential intervention to improve recovery in critical care populations and synthesized elements important to peer support model design. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychINFO, and Excertpa Medica Database was undertaken May 2017. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification number: CRD42017070174. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against study eligibility criteria. Studies were included where 1) patients and families had experienced critical illness and 2) patients and families had participated in a peer support intervention. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and a third independent reviewer adjudicated as necessary. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers assessed study quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines and interventions summarized using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two-thousand nine-hundred thirty-two studies were screened. Eight were included, comprising 192 family members and 92 patients including adults (with cardiac surgery, acute myocardial infarction, trauma), pediatrics, and neonates. The most common peer support model of the eight studies was an in-person, facilitated group for families that occurred during the patients' ICU admission. Peer support reduced psychologic morbidity and improved social support and self-efficacy in two studies; in both cases, peer support was via an individual peer-to-peer model. In the remaining studies, it was difficult to determine the outcomes of peer support as the reporting and quality of studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support appeared to reduce psychologic morbidity and increase social support. The evidence for peer support in critically ill populations is limited. There is a need for well-designed and rigorously reported research into this complex intervention.

Diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone application for the assessment of attention deficits in delirium in older hospitalised patients: a prospective cohort study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common and serious clinical syndrome which is often missed in routine clinical care. The core cognitive feature is inattention. We developed a novel bedside neuropsychological test for assessing inattention in delirium implemented on a smartphone platform (DelApp). We aim to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the DelApp in a representative cohort of older hospitalised patients. METHODS: This is a prospective study of older non-scheduled hospitalised patients (target n = 500, age ≥ 65), recruited from elderly care and acute orthopaedic wards. Exclusion criteria are: non-English speakers; severe vision or hearing impairment; photosensitive epilepsy. A structured reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-5 criteria will be used, which includes a cognitive test battery administered by a trained assessor (Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test, Abbreviated Mental Test-10, Delirium Rating Severity Scale-Revised-98, digit span, months and days backwards, Vigilance A' test) and assessment of arousal (Observational Scale of Level of Arousal, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale). Prior change in cognition will be documented using the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. Patients will be categorized as delirium (with/without dementia), possible delirium, dementia, no cognitive impairment, or undetermined. A separate assessor (blinded to diagnosis and assessments) will administer the DelApp index test within 3 h of the reference standard assessment. The DelApp comprises assessment of arousal (score 0-4) and sustained attention (score 0-6), yielding a total score between 0 and 10 (higher score = better performance). Outcomes (length of stay, mortality and discharge location) will be collected at 12 weeks. We will evaluate a priori cutpoints derived from a previous case-control study. Measures of the accuracy of DelApp will include sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the ROC curve. We plan repeat assessments on up to 4 occasions in a purposive subsample of 30 patients (15 delirium, 15 no delirium) to examine changes over time. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates the diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone test for delirium in a representative cohort of older hospitalised patients, including those with dementia. DelApp has the potential to be a convenient, objective method of improving delirium assessment for older people in acute care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov, NCT02590796 . Registered on 29 Oct 2015. Protocol version 5, dated 25 July 2016.

Development of Process Control Methodology for Tracking the Quality and Safety of Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Management in Critical Care Units.

OBJECTIVE: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. DESIGN: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. SETTING: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman ρ = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; κ = 0.66) and clinician-researcher (κ = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale (ρ = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician (κ = 0.58) and clinician-researcher (κ = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale (ρ = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician (κ = 0.29) and clinician-researcher (κ = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time.