Impact of restricted family presence during the COVID-19 pandemic on critically ill patients, families, and critical care clinicians: a qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to synthesize the qualitative evidence on the impacts of COVID-19-related restricted family presence policies from the perspective of patients, families, and healthcare professionals from neonatal (NICU), pediatric (PICU), or adult ICUs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Databases of Reviews and Clinical Trials, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two researchers independently reviewed titles/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Thematic analysis was completed following appraising article quality and assessing confidence in the individual review findings using standardized tools. RESULTS: We synthesized 54 findings from 184 studies, revealing the impacts of these policies in children and adults on: (1) Family integrated care and patient and family-centered care (e.g., disruption to breastfeeding/kangaroo care, dehumanizing of patients); (2) Patients, families, and healthcare professionals (e.g., negative mental health consequences, moral distress); (3) Support systems (e.g., loss of support from friends/families); and (4) Relationships (e.g., loss of essential bonding with infant, struggle to develop trust). Strategies to mitigate these impacts are reported. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the multifaceted impacts of restricted visitation policies across distinct care settings and strategies to mitigate the harmful effects of these policies and guide the creation of compassionate family presence policies in future health crises. REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=290263 .

A world-wide study on delirium assessments and presence of protocols.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. OBJECTIVE: To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. SETTING: Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. METHODS: Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers. RESULTS: Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289-9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions. CONCLUSION: Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.

Barriers, Solutions, and Opportunities for Adapting Critical Care Clinical Trials in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for clinical trials worldwide, threatening premature closure and trial integrity. Every phase of research operations was affected, often requiring modifications to protocol design and implementation. Objectives: To identify the barriers, solutions, and opportunities associated with continuing critical care trials that were interrupted during the pandemic, and to generate suggestions for future trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study performed an explanatory sequential analysis involving a self-administered electronic survey and focus groups of principal investigators (PIs) and project coordinators (PCs) conducting adult and pediatric individual-patient randomized trials of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible trials were actively enrolling patients on March 11, 2020. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Importance ratings of barriers to trial conduct and completion, solutions employed, opportunities arising, and suggested strategies for future trials. Quantitative data examining barriers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data addressing solutions, opportunities, and suggestions were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Integration involved triangulation of data sources and perspectives about 13 trials, synthesized by an interprofessional team incorporating reflexivity and member-checking. Results: A total of 13 trials run by 29 PIs and PCs (100% participation rate) were included. The highest-rated barriers (on a 5-point scale) to ongoing conduct during the pandemic were decisions to pause all clinical research (mean [SD] score, 4.7 [0.8]), focus on COVID-19 studies (mean [SD] score, 4.6 [0.8]), and restricted family presence in hospitals (mean [SD] score, 4.1 [0.8]). Suggestions to enable trial progress and completion included providing scientific leadership, implementing technology for communication and data management, facilitating the informed consent process, adapting the protocol as necessary, fostering site engagement, initiating new sites, streamlining ethics and contract review, and designing nested studies. The pandemic necessitated new funding opportunities to sustain trial enrollment. It increased public awareness of critical illness and the importance of randomized trial evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: While underscoring the vital role of research in society and drawing the scientific community together with a common purpose, the pandemic signaled the need for innovation to ensure the rigor and completion of ongoing trials. Lessons learned to optimize research procedures will help to ensure a vibrant clinical trials enterprise in the future.

Core socioDemographic data variables in ICU Trials (CoDe-IT): a protocol for generating core data variables using a Delphi consensus process.

INTRODUCTION: Sociodemographic variables influence health outcomes, either directly (ie, gender identity) or indirectly (eg, structural/systemic racism based on ethnoracial group). Identification of how sociodemographic variables can impact the health of critically ill adults is important to guide care and research design for this population. However, despite the growing recognition of the importance of collecting sociodemographic measures that influence health outcomes, insufficient and inconsistent data collection of sociodemographic variables persists in critical care studies. We aim to develop a set of core data variables (CoDaV) for social determinants of health specific to studies involving critically ill adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review to generate a list of possible sociodemographic measures to be used for round 1 of the modified Delphi processes. We will engage relevant knowledge users (previous intensive care unit patients and family members, critical care researchers, critical care clinicians and research co-ordinators) to participate in the modified Delphi consensus survey to identify the CoDaV. A final consensus meeting will be held with knowledge user representatives to discuss the final CoDaV, how each sociodemographic variable will be collected (eg, level of granularity) and how to disseminate the CoDaV for use in critical care studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Calgary conjoint health research ethics board has approved this study protocol (REB22-1648).

Acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway for use in critically ill adults with hypoxaemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hypoxaemic respiratory failure (HRF) affects nearly 15% of critically ill adults admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). An evidence-based, stakeholder-informed multidisciplinary care pathway (Venting Wisely) was created to standardise the diagnosis and management of patients with HRF and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Successful adherence to the pathway requires a coordinated team-based approach by the clinician team. The overall aim of this study is to describe the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway among critical care clinicians. Specifically, this will allow us to (1) better understand the user's experience with the intervention and (2) determine if the intervention was delivered as intended. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This qualitative study will conduct focus groups with nurse practitioners, physicians, registered nurses and registered respiratory therapists from 17 Alberta ICUs. We will use template analysis to describe the acceptability of a multicomponent care pathway according to seven constructs of acceptability: (1) affective attitude;,(2) burden, (3) ethicality, (4) intervention coherence, (5) opportunity costs, (6) perceived effectiveness and (7) self-efficacy. This study will contribute to a better understanding of the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway. Identification of areas of poor acceptability will be used to refine the pathway and implementation strategies as ways to improve adherence to the pathway and promote its sustainability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a scientific conference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04744298.

ICU Care Team's Perception of Clinical Research in the ICU: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: Adequate recruitment is essential for successful clinical research. ICU nurses play a crucial role in identifying eligible patients, introducing research teams, facilitating informed consent, and caring for enrolled patients. However, a larger group of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals (the ICU care team) is equally important in promoting clinical research participation.To describe the ICU care team's experiences in ongoing clinical research, identifying perceived barriers and enablers to their participation, and apply a behavior framework to enhance research engagement. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Four adult ICUs and one PICU between June 2021 and March 2023. SUBJECTS: We recruited nurses, physicians, nurse practitioners, allied health professionals, and unit clerks. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: We developed and validated a cross-sectional survey based on the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model. This survey included: 1) demographic questions (n = 7); 2) research experience questions (n = 6), 3) capability questions (n = 8); 4) opportunity questions (n = 11); 5) and motivation questions (n = 13).A total of 172 ICU care team members completed the survey. Results showed differences in capabilities, opportunities, and motivations among ICU care team members. For example, fellow/attending physicians and nurse practitioners reported higher confidence in discussing research with patients/families, while registered nurses and allied health professionals expressed less confidence. CONCLUSIONS: ICU care team members face multiple barriers that impact their involvement with the conduct of ICU research. To effectively engage healthcare professionals in this process, it is essential to address their capabilities (research knowledge and skills to communicate research with patients/families), create opportunities (collaboration/communication with research team, discuss research during multidisciplinary rounds), and motivate them (recognize their help and share the results of the research being conducted at their site) to improve ICU care team engagement in the conduct of ICU research.

Patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU: A mixed-methods study of patient and family perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to create a definition of patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding during critical illness as an outcome for a randomized trial. DESIGN: This was a sequential mixed-methods qualitative-dominant multi-center study with an instrument-building aim. In semi-structured individual interviews or focus groups we elicited views from survivors of critical illness and family members of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) regarding which features indicate important gastrointestinal bleeding. Quantitative demographic characteristics were collected. We analyzed qualitative data using inductive content analysis to develop a definition for patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding. SETTING: Canada and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 51 ICU survivors and family members of ICU patients. RESULTS: Participants considered gastrointestinal bleeding to be important if it resulted in death, disability, or prolonged hospitalization. The following also signaled patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding: blood transfusion, vasopressors, endoscopy, CT-angiography, or surgery. Whether an intervention evinced concern depended on its effectiveness, side-effects, invasiveness and accessibility; contextual influences included participant familiarity and knowledge of interventions and trust in the clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of critical illness and family members described patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding differently than current definitions of clinically-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding.