Characterizing Cardiac Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis: A Pilot Study Protocol.

Background: Sepsis is one of the most common reasons for ICU admission and a leading cause of mortality worldwide. More than one-half of survivors experience significant physical, psychological, or cognitive impairments, often termed post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Sepsis is recognized increasingly as being associated with a risk of adverse cardiovascular events that is comparable with other major cardiovascular risk factors. It is plausible that sepsis survivors may be at risk of unidentified cardiovascular disease, and this may play a role in functional impairments seen after ICU discharge. Research Question: What is the prevalence of myocardial dysfunction after an ICU admission with sepsis and to what extent might it be associated with physical impairments in PICS? Study Design and Methods: Characterisation of Cardiovascular Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis (CONDUCT-ICU) is a prospective, multicenter, pilot study characterizing cardiovascular function and functional impairments in survivors of sepsis taking place in the west of Scotland. Survivors of sepsis will be recruited at ICU discharge and followed up 6 to 10 weeks after hospital discharge. Biomarkers of myocardial injury or dysfunction (high sensitivity troponin and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide) and systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein, IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha) will be measured in 69 patients at recruitment and at follow-up. In addition, a cardiovascular magnetic resonance substudy will be performed at follow-up in 35 patients. We will explore associations between cardiovascular magenetic resonance indexes of cardiac function, biomarkers of cardiac dysfunction and inflammation, and patient-reported outcome measures. Interpretation: CONDUCT-ICU will provide data regarding the cause and prevalence of cardiac dysfunction in survivors of sepsis and will explore associations with functional impairment. It will provide feasibility data and operational learning for larger studies investigating mechanisms of functional impairment after ICU admission and the association between sepsis and adverse cardiovascular events. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05633290; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Could an integrated model of health and social care after critical illness reduce socioeconomic disparities in outcomes? A Bayesian analysis.

Background: There is limited evidence to understand what impact, if any, recovery services might have for patients across the socioeconomic spectrum after critical illness. We analysed data from a multicentre critical care recovery programme to understand the impact of this programme across the socioeconomic spectrum. Methods: The setting for this pre-planned secondary analysis was a critical care rehabilitation programme-Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment. Data were collected from five hospital sites running this programme. We utilised a Bayesian approach to analysis and explore any possible effect of the InS:PIRE intervention on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) across the socioeconomic gradient. A Bayesian quantile, non-linear mixed effects regression model, using a compound symmetry covariance structure, accounting for multiple timepoints was utilised. The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) was used to measure socioeconomic status and HRQoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L. Results: In the initial baseline cohort of 182 patients, 55% of patients were male, the median age was 58 yr (inter-quartile range: 50-66 yr) and 129 (79%) patients had two or more comorbidities at ICU admission. Using the neutral prior, there was an overall probability of intervention benefit of 100% (ß=0.71, 95% credible interval: 0.34-1.09) over 12 months to those in the SIMD≤3 cohort, and an 98.6% (ß=-1.38, 95% credible interval: -2.62 to -0.16) probability of greater benefit (i.e. a steeper increase in improvement) at 12 months in the SIMD≤3 vs SIMD≥4 cohort in the EQ-visual analogue scale. Conclusions: Using multicentre data, this re-analysis suggests, but does not prove, that an integrated health and social care intervention is likely to improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient after critical illness, with a potentially greater benefit for those from deprived communities. Future research designed to prospectively analyse how critical care recovery programmes could potentially improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient is warranted.

Cardiac dysfunction in survivors of sepsis: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events in a magnitude comparable to other major cardiovascular risk factors. Sepsis is one of the most common reasons for intensive care admission and survivors often have significant functional limitations following discharge. However, it is not clear to what extent chronic cardiovascular dysfunction might mediate these functional impairments, or how we might screen and manage these patients at risk of chronic cardiovascular disease. We conducted a scoping review to map existing evidence and identify research gaps relating to cardiovascular dysfunction following sepsis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases using a concept, context, population (CoCoPop) framework. Studies examining cardiovascular outcomes or symptoms following an episode of sepsis in adults were included. Data were mapped based on the population assessed, cardiovascular outcomes examined, inclusion of objective measures of cardiac dysfunction such as biomarkers or cardiovascular imaging, or whether cardiovascular symptoms or patient-reported functional outcomes measures were recorded. RESULTS: We identified 11 210 articles of which 70 were eligible for full text review and 28 were included in final analysis. Across our dataset, a wide range of incident cardiovascular outcomes were reported in the literature including incidence of congestive heart failure (13/28), arrhythmia (6/28), myocardial infarction (24/28) or cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality (20/28). Only 39% (11/28) of articles reported objective measures of cardiovascular function and only one article related cardiovascular function to functional impairment via patient-reported outcome measures. CONCLUSION: There are significant gaps in our understanding of cardiac dysfunction following sepsis . While the research highlights the strong association of sepsis with a variety of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, further prospective work is required to understand the mechanisms that mediate this phenomenon and how we can best identify and manage patients at risk.

Do critical illness survivors with multimorbidity need a different model of care?

There is currently a lack of evidence on the optimal strategy to support patient recovery after critical illness. Previous research has largely focussed on rehabilitation interventions which aimed to address physical, psychological, and cognitive functional sequelae, the majority of which have failed to demonstrate benefit for the selected outcomes in clinical trials. It is increasingly recognised that a person's existing health status, and in particular multimorbidity (usually defined as two or more medical conditions) and frailty, are strongly associated with their long-term outcomes after critical illness. Recent evidence indicates the existence of a distinct subgroup of critical illness survivors with multimorbidity and high healthcare utilisation, whose prior health trajectory is a better predictor of long-term outcomes than the severity of their acute illness. This review examines the complex relationships between multimorbidity and patient outcomes after critical illness, which are likely mediated by a range of factors including the number, severity, and modifiability of a person's medical conditions, as well as related factors including treatment burden, functional status, healthcare delivery, and social support. We explore potential strategies to optimise patient recovery after critical illness in the presence of multimorbidity. A comprehensive and individualized approach is likely necessary including close coordination among healthcare providers, medication reconciliation and management, and addressing the physical, psychological, and social aspects of recovery. Providing patient-centred care that proactively identifies critical illness survivors with multimorbidity and accounts for their unique challenges and needs is likely crucial to facilitate recovery and improve outcomes.

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.

Understanding and Managing Anxiety Sensitivity During Critical Illness and Long-Term Recovery.

Anxiety sensitivity is a fear of symptoms associated with anxiety (eg, rapid respiration and heart rate, perspiration), also known as "fear of fear." This fear is a misinterpretation of nonthreatening symptoms as threatening across 3 domains: physical ("When my heart rate increases, I'm afraid I may have a heart attack"), social ("If people see me perspire, I fear they will negatively evaluate me"), and cognitive ("When I feel these symptoms, I fear it means I'm going crazy or will lose control and do something dangerous like disconnect my IV"). These thoughts stimulate the sympathetic nervous system, resulting in stronger sensations and further catastrophic misinterpretations, which may spiral into a panic attack. Strategies to address anxiety sensitivity include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. In intensive care unit settings, anxiety sensitivity may be related to common monitoring and interventional procedures (eg, oxygen therapy, repositioning, use of urine collection systems). Anxiety sensitivity can be a barrier to weaning from mechanical ventilation when patients are uncomfortable following instructions to perform awakening or breathing trials. Fortunately, anxiety sensitivity is a malleable trait with evidence-based intervention options. However, few health care providers are aware of this psychological construct and available treatment. This article describes the nature of anxiety sensitivity, its potential impact on intensive care, how to assess and interpret scores from validated instruments such as the Anxiety Sensitivity Index, and treatment approaches across the critical care trajectory, including long-term recovery. Implications for critical care practice and future directions are also addressed.

Post-hospital recovery trajectories of family members of critically ill COVID-19 survivors: an international qualitative investigation.

PURPOSE: The immediate impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) visiting restrictions for family members has been well-documented. However, the longer-term trajectory, including mechanisms for support, is less well-known. To address this knowledge gap, we aimed to explore the post-hospital recovery trajectory of family members of patients hospitalised with a critical care COVID-19 admission. We also sought to understand any differences across international contexts. METHODS: We undertook semi-structured interviews with family members of patients who had survived a COVID-19 critical care admission. Family members were recruited from Spain and the United Kingdom (UK) and telephone interviews were undertaken. Interviews were analysed using a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Across the international sites, 19 family members were interviewed. Four themes were identified: changing relationships and carer burden; family health and trauma; social support and networks and differences in lived experience. We found differences in the social support and networks theme across international contexts, with Spanish participants more frequently discussing religion as a form of support. CONCLUSIONS: This international qualitative investigation has demonstrated the challenges which family members of patients hospitalised with a critical care COVID-19 admission experience following hospital discharge. Specific support mechanisms which could include peer support networks, should be implemented for family members to ensure ongoing needs are met.

Driving decisions after critical illness: Qualitative analysis of patient-provider reviews during ICU recovery clinic assessments.

BACKGROUND: Driving a vehicle is a functional task requiring a threshold of physical, behavioral and cognitive skills. OBJECTIVE: To report patient-provider evaluations of driving status and driving safety assessments after critical illness. DESIGN: Qualitative secondary analysis of driving-related dialog drawn from a two-arm pilot study evaluating telemedicine delivery of Intensive Care Unit Recovery Clinic assessments. Multidisciplinary providers assessed physical, psychological, and cognitive recovery during one-hour telemedicine ICU-RC assessments. Qualitative secondary analysis of patient-provider dialog specific to driving practices after critical illness. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Unit Recovery clinic assessment dialog between 17 patients and their providers during 3-week and/or 12-week follow-up assessments at a tertiary academic medical center in the Southeastern United States. MAIN MEASURES AND KEY RESULTS: Thematic content analysis was performed to describe and classify driving safety discussion, driving status and driving practices after critical illness. Driving-related discussions occurred with 15 of 17 participants and were clinician-initiated. When assessed, driving status varied with participants reporting independent decisions to resume driving, delay driving and cease driving after critical illness. Patient-reported driving practices after critical illness included modifications to limit driving to medical appointments, self-assessments of trip durations, and inclusion of care partners as a safety measure for new onset fatigue while driving. CONCLUSION: We found that patients are largely self-navigating this stage of recovery, making subjective decisions on driving resumption and overall driving status. These results highlight that driving status changes are an often underrecognized yet salient social cost of critical illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03926533.

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.

Use of protracted CPAP as supportive treatment for COVID-19 pneumonitis and associated outcomes: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been increasingly deployed to manage patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure, often for protracted periods. However, concerns about protracted CPAP have been raised. This study aimed to examine the use of CPAP for patients with COVID-19 and the outcomes after protracted use. METHODS: This was a national cohort study of all adults admitted to Scottish critical care units with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020 to December 25, 2021 who received CPAP. Protracted CPAP was defined as ≥ 5 continuous days of CPAP. Outcomes included CPAP failure rate (institution of invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV] or death), mortality, and outcomes after institution of IMV. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of protracted CPAP on mortality after IMV. RESULTS: A total of 1961 patients with COVID-19 received CPAP for COVID-19 pneumonitis, with 733 patients (37.4%) receiving protracted CPAP. CPAP failure occurred in 891 (45.4%): 544 patients (27.7%) received IMV and 347 patients (17.7%) died in critical care without IMV. Hospital mortality rate was 41.3% for the population. For patients who subsequently commenced IMV, hospital mortality was 58.7% for the standard duration CPAP group and 73.9% for the protracted duration CPAP group (P=0.003); however, there was no statistical difference in hospital mortality after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.33, P=0.195). CONCLUSIONS: Protracted CPAP was used frequently for managing patients with COVID-19. Whilst it was not associated with worse outcomes for those patients who subsequently required IMV, this might be due to residual confounding and differences in processes of care.

Medication-related problems in critical care survivors: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: There are numerous, often single centre discussions of assorted medication-related problems after hospital discharge in patients who survive critical illness. However, there has been little synthesis of the incidence of medication-related problems, the classes of medications most often studied, the factors that are associated with greater patient risk of such problems or interventions that can prevent them. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review to understand medication management and medication problems in critical care survivors in the hospital discharge period. We searched OVID Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane database (2001-2022). Two reviewers independently screened publications to identify studies that examined medication management at hospital discharge or thereafter in critical care survivors. We included randomised and non-randomised studies. We extracted data independently and in duplicate. Data extracted included medication type, medication-related problems and frequency of medication issues, alongside demographics such as study setting. Cohort study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottowa Score checklist. Data were analysed across medication categories. RESULTS: The database search initially retrieved 1180 studies; following the removal of duplicates and studies which did not fit the inclusion criteria, 47 papers were included. The quality of studies included varied. The outcomes measured and the timepoints at which data were captured also varied, which impacted the quality of data synthesis. Across the studies included, we found that as many as 80% of critically ill patients experienced medication-related problems in the posthospital discharge period. These issues included inappropriate continuation of newly prescribed drugs such as antipsychotics, gastrointestinal prophylaxis and analgesic medications, as well as inappropriate discontinuation of chronic disease medications, such as secondary prevention cardiac drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Following critical illness, a high proportion of patients experience problems with their medications. These changes were present across multiple health systems. Further research is required to understand optimal medicine management across the full recovery trajectory of critical illness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021255975.

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.

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.

Multidisciplinary ICU Recovery Clinic Visits: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Provider Dialogues.

BACKGROUND: Research confirms the heterogeneous nature of patient challenges during recovery from the ICU and supports the need for modifying care experiences, but few data are available to guide clinicians seeking to support patients' individual recovery trajectories. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the content of patient-provider dialogues in a telemedicine multidisciplinary ICU recovery clinic (ICU-RC)? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study in a telemedicine multidisciplinary ICU-RC at a tertiary academic medical center in the southeastern United States. The sample included 19 patients and 13 caregivers (≥ 18 years of age) attending a telemedicine ICU-RC visit after critical illness resulting from septic shock or ARDS. Patients and caregivers met with an ICU pharmacist, ICU physician, and a psychologist via a secure web-conferencing platform for 33 ICU-RC visits within 12 weeks of hospital discharge. Telemedicine ICU-RC visits were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. A coding system was developed using iterative inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Two themes were identified from the patient-provider dialogue: (1) problem identification and (2) problem-solving strategies. We identified five subthemes that capture the types of problems identified: health status, mental health and cognition, medication management, health-care access and navigation, and quality of life. Problem-solving subthemes included facilitating care coordination and transitions, providing education, and giving constructive feedback and guidance. INTERPRETATION: Patients surviving a critical illness experience a complexity of problems that may be addressed best by a multidisciplinary ICU-RC. Through analysis of our telemedicine ICU-RC dialogues, we were able to identify problems and solutions to address challenges during a critical transitional phase of ICU recovery. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03926533; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

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.

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.

Modification of social determinants of health by critical illness and consequences of that modification for recovery: an international qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Social determinants of health (SDoH) contribute to health outcomes. We identified SDoH that were modified by critical illness, and the effect of such modifications on recovery from critical illness. DESIGN: In-depth semistructured interviews following hospital discharge. Interview transcripts were mapped against a pre-existing social policy framework: money and work; skills and education; housing, transport and neighbourhoods; and family, friends and social connections. SETTING: 14 hospital sites in the USA, UK and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and caregivers, who had been admitted to critical care from three continents. RESULTS: 86 interviews were analysed (66 patients and 20 caregivers). SDoH, both financial and non-financial in nature, could be negatively influenced by exposure to critical illness, with a direct impact on health-related outcomes at an individual level. Financial modifications included changes to employment status due to critical illness-related disability, alongside changes to income and insurance status. Negative health impacts included the inability to access essential healthcare and an increase in mental health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Critical illness appears to modify SDoH for survivors and their family members, potentially impacting recovery and health. Our findings suggest that increased attention to issues such as one's social network, economic security and access to healthcare is required following discharge from critical care.

Healthcare delivery and recovery after critical illness.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize improvements and innovations in healthcare delivery which could be implemented to improve the recovery experience after critical illness for adult survivors and their families. RECENT FINDINGS: For survivors of critical illness, the transitions in care during their recovery journey are points of heightened vulnerability associated with adverse events. Survivors of critical illness often have errors in the management of their medications during the recovery period. A multicomponent intervention delivered for 30 days that focused on four key principles of improved recovery care after sepsis care was associated with a durable effect on 12-month rehospitalization and mortality compared with usual care. A recent multicentre study which piloted integrating health and social care for critical care survivors demonstrated improvements in health-related quality of life and self-efficacy at 12 months. Multiple qualitative studies provide insights into how peer support programmes could potentially benefit survivors of critical illness by providing them mechanism to share their experiences, to give back to other patients, and to set more realistic expectations for recovery. SUMMARY: Future research could focus on exploring safety outcomes as primary endpoints and finding ways to develop and test implementation strategies to improve the recovery after critical illness.

Acquisition of new medical devices among the persistently critically ill: A retrospective cohort study in the Veterans Affairs.

Patients who develop persistent critical illness remain in the ICU predominately because they develop new late-onset organ failure(s), which may render them at risk of acquiring a new medical device. The epidemiology and short-term outcomes of patients with persistent critical illness who acquire a new medical device are unknown. We retrospectively studied a cohort admitted to the Veterans Affairs (VA) ICUs from 2014 to 2019. Persistent critical illness was defined as an ICU length of stay of at least 14 days. Receipt of new devices was defined as acquisition of a new tracheostomy, feeding tube (including gastrostomy and jejunostomy tubes), implantable cardiac device, or ostomy. Logistic regression models were fit to identify patient factors associated with the acquisition of each new medical device. Among hospitalized survivors, 90-day posthospitalization discharge location and mortality were identified. From 2014 to 2019, there were 13,184 ICU hospitalizations in the VA which developed persistent critical illness. In total, 30.4% of patients (N = 3998/13,184) acquired at least 1 medical device during their persistent critical illness period. Patients with an initial higher severity of illness and prolonged hospital stay preICU admission had higher odds of acquiring each medical device. Among patients who survived their hospitalization, discharge location and mortality did not significantly differ among those who acquired a new medical device as compared to those who did not. Less than one-third of patients with persistent critical illness acquire a new medical device and no significant difference in short-term outcomes was identified. Future work is needed to understand if the acquisition of new medical devices is contributing to the development of persistent critical illness.