Feasibility of Mobile App-based Coping Skills Training for Cardiorespiratory Failure Survivors: The Blueprint Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rationale: Psychological distress symptoms are common among patients recently hospitalized with cardiorespiratory failure, yet there are few effective postdischarge therapies that are relevant to their experiences. Objectives: To determine the feasibility and clinical impact of two different versions of a month-long self-guided mobile app-based coping skills program called Blueprint in comparison to usual care (UC) control. Methods: Patients hospitalized with a serious cardiopulmonary diagnoses were recruited from adult intensive care units and stepdown units at a large academic medical center. Participants with elevated psychological distress symptoms just after discharge were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to Blueprint with a therapist (BP/therapist), Blueprint without a therapist (BP/no therapist), or UC control. All study procedures were conducted remotely. Blueprint is a self-guided, symptom-responsive, mobile app-based adaptive coping skills program with 4 themed weeks with different daily audio, video, and text content. Participants completed surveys via the app platform at baseline and 1 and 3 months later. The primary outcome was feasibility. Additional outcomes included the HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) total score, the PTSS (Post-Traumatic Stress Scale), and a 100-point quality of life visual analog scale. Results: Of 63 patients who consented, 45 (71%) with elevated distress were randomized to BP/therapist (n = 16 [36%]), BP/no therapist (n = 14 [31%]), and UC (n = 15 [33%]). Observed rates were similar to target feasibility benchmarks, including consented patients who were randomized (71.4%), retention (75.6%), and intervention adherence (97% with weekly use). Estimated mean differences (95% confidence intervals) at 1 month compared with baseline included: HADS total (BP/therapist, -3.8 [-6.7 to -0.6]; BP/no therapist, -4.2 [-7.6 to -0.0]; UC, -3.4 [-6.6 to 0.2]); PTSS (BP/therapist, -6.7 [-11.3 to -2.1]; BP/no therapist, -9.1 [-14.4 to -3.9]; UC, -4.2 [-10.8 to 2.3]); and quality of life (BP/therapist, -4.5 [-14.3 to 4.6]; BP/no therapist, 14.0 [-0.9 to 29.0]; UC, 8.7 [-3.5 to 20.9]). Conclusions: Among survivors of cardiorespiratory failure, a mobile app-based postdischarge coping skills training intervention demonstrated evidence of feasibility and clinical impact compared with UC control. A larger trial is warranted to test the efficacy of this approach. Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04329702).

Palliative care phenotypes among critically ill patients and family members: intensive care unit prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Because the heterogeneity of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and family members represents a challenge to palliative care delivery, we aimed to determine if distinct phenotypes of palliative care needs exist. METHODS: Prospective cohort study conducted among family members of adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in six medical and surgical ICUs. The primary outcome was palliative care need measured by the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST, range from 0 (no need) to 130 (highest need)) completed 3 days after ICU admission. We also assessed quality of communication, clinician-family relationship and patient centredness of care. Latent class analysis of the NEST's 13 items was used to identify groups with similar patterns of serious palliative care needs. RESULTS: Among 257 family members, latent class analysis yielded a four-class model including complex communication needs (n=26, 10%; median NEST score 68.0), family spiritual and cultural needs (n=21, 8%; 40.0) and patient and family stress needs (n=43, 31%; 31.0), as well as a fourth group with fewer serious needs (n=167, 65%; 14.0). Interclass differences existed in quality of communication (median range 4.0-10.0, p<0.001), favourable clinician-family relationship (range 34.6%-98.2%, p<0.001) and both the patient centredness of care Eliciting Concerns (median range 4.0-5.0, p<0.001) and Decision-Making (median range 2.3-4.5, p<0.001) scales. CONCLUSIONS: Four novel phenotypes of palliative care need were identified among ICU family members with distinct differences in the severity of needs and perceived quality of the clinician-family interaction. Knowledge of need class may help to inform the development of more person-centred models of ICU-based palliative care.