Patient discharge from intensive care: an updated scoping review to identify tools and practices to inform high-quality care.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients require complex care and experience unique needs during and after their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Discharging or transferring a patient from the ICU to a hospital ward or back to community care (under the care of a general practitioner) includes several elements that may shape patient outcomes and overall experiences. The aim of this study was to answer the question: what elements facilitate a successful, high-quality discharge from the ICU? METHODS: This scoping review is an update to a review published in 2015. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from 2013-December 3, 2020 including adult, pediatric, and neonatal populations without language restrictions. Data were abstracted using different phases of care framework models, themes, facilitators, and barriers to the ICU discharge process. RESULTS: We included 314 articles from 11,461 unique citations. Two-hundred and fifty-eight (82.2%) articles were primary research articles, mostly cohort (118/314, 37.6%) or qualitative (51/314, 16.2%) studies. Common discharge themes across all articles included adverse events, readmission, and mortality after discharge (116/314, 36.9%) and patient and family needs and experiences during discharge (112/314, 35.7%). Common discharge facilitators were discharge education for patients and families (82, 26.1%), successful provider-provider communication (77/314, 24.5%), and organizational tools to facilitate discharge (50/314, 15.9%). Barriers to a successful discharge included patient demographic and clinical characteristics (89/314, 22.3%), healthcare provider workload (21/314, 6.7%), and the impact of current discharge practices on flow and performance (49/314, 15.6%). We identified 47 discharge tools that could be used or adapted to facilitate an ICU discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors contribute to a successful ICU discharge, with facilitators and barriers present at the patient and family, health care provider, and organizational level. Successful provider-patient and provider-provider communication, and educating and engaging patients and families about the discharge process were important factors in a successful ICU discharge.

Factors affecting hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccine booster doses in Canada: a cross-national survey.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 transmission, emergence of variants of concern, and weakened immunity have led to recommended vaccine booster doses for COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy challenges broad immunization coverage. We deployed a cross-national survey to investigate knowledge, beliefs, and behaviours toward continued COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We administered a national, cross-sectional online survey among adults in Canada between March 16 and March 26, 2022. We utilized descriptive statistics to summarize our sample, and tested for demographic differences, perceptions of vaccine effectiveness, recommended doses, and trust in decisions, using the Rao-Scott correction for weighted chi-squared tests. Multivariable logistic regression was adjusted for relevant covariates to identify sociodemographic factors and beliefs associated with vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: We collected 2202 completed questionnaires. Lower education status (high school: odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29, 2.81) and having children (OR 1.89, CI 1.39, 2.57) were associated with increased odds of experiencing hesitancy toward a booster dose, while higher income ($100,000-$149,999: OR 0.60, CI 0.39, 0.91; $150,000 or more: OR 0.49, CI 0.29, 0.82) was associated with decreased odds. Disbelief in vaccine effectiveness (against infection: OR 3.69, CI 1.98, 6.90; serious illness: OR 3.15, CI 1.69, 5.86), disagreeing with government decision-making (somewhat disagree: OR 2.70, CI 1.38, 5.29; strongly disagree: OR 4.62, CI 2.20, 9.7), and beliefs in over-vaccinating (OR 2.07, CI 1.53, 2.80) were found associated with booster dose hesitancy. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may develop or increase regarding subsequent vaccines. Our findings indicate factors to consider when targeting vaccine-hesitant populations.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La transmission de la COVID-19, l'émergence de variants préoccupants et l'affaiblissement de l'immunité ont conduit à recommander des doses de rappel de vaccin contre la COVID-19. L'hésitation à la vaccination remet en question une large couverture vaccinale. Nous avons déployé une enquête transnationale pour étudier les connaissances, les croyances et les comportements en faveur de la poursuite de la vaccination contre la COVID-19. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une enquête nationale transversale en ligne auprès d'adultes au Canada, entre le 16 et le 26 mars 2022. Nous avons utilisé des statistiques descriptives pour résumer notre échantillon et testé les différences démographiques, les perceptions de l'efficacité des vaccins, les doses recommandées et la confiance dans les décisions, en utilisant la correction de Rao-Scott pour les tests du chi carré pondérés. La régression logistique multivariée a été ajustée pour les covariables pertinentes afin d'identifier les facteurs sociodémographiques et les croyances associés à l'hésitation à la vaccination. RéSULTATS: Nous avons collecté 2 202 questionnaires remplis. Un faible niveau d'éducation (lycée : rapport de cotes (OR) 1,90, intervalle de confiance (IC) à 95% 1,29, 2,81) et le fait d'avoir des enfants (OR 1,89, IC 1,39, 2,57) étaient associés à une probabilité accrue d'éprouver une hésitation à l'égard d'une dose de rappel, tandis qu'un revenu plus élevé (100 000 $­149 999 $ : OR 0,60, IC 0,39, 0,91; 150 000 $ ou plus : OR 0,49, IC 0,29, 0,82) était associé à une diminution des probabilités. Incrédulité dans l'efficacité du vaccin (contre l'infection : OR 3,69, IC 1,98, 6,90; maladie grave : OR 3,15, IC 1,69, 5,86), en désaccord avec la prise de décision du gouvernement (plutôt en désaccord : OR 2,70, IC 1,38, 5,29; fortement en désaccord : OR 4,62, IC 2,20, 9,7) et la croyance dans le sur-vaccination (OR 2,07, IC 1,53, 2,80) ont été associées à une hésitation à recevoir une dose de rappel. CONCLUSION: Une hésitation à l'égard du vaccin contre la COVID-19 peut se développer ou augmenter à l'égard des vaccins ultérieurs. Nos résultats indiquent des facteurs à prendre en compte lors du ciblage des populations hésitantes à la vaccination.

The evolution of vaccine hesitancy through the COVID-19 pandemic: A semi-structured interview study on booster and bivalent doses.

We sought in-depth understanding on the evolution of factors influencing COVID-19 booster dose and bivalent vaccine hesitancy in a longitudinal semi-structured interview-based qualitative study. Serial interviews were conducted between July 25th and September 1st, 2022 (Phase I: univalent booster dose availability), and between November 21st, 2022 and January 11th, 2023 (Phase II: bivalent vaccine availability). Adults (≥18 years) in Canada who had received an initial primary series and had not received a COVID-19 booster dose were eligible for Phase I, and subsequently invited to participate in Phase II. Twenty-two of twenty-three (96%) participants completed interviews for both phases (45 interviews). Nearly half of participants identified as a woman (n = 11), the median age was 37 years (interquartile range: 32-48), and most participants were employed full-time (n = 12); no participant reported needing to vaccinate (with a primary series) for their workplace. No participant reported having received a COVID-19 booster dose at the time of their interview in Phase II. Three themes relating to the development of hesitancy toward continued vaccination against COVID-19 were identified: 1) effectiveness (frequency concerns; infection despite vaccination); 2) necessity (less threatening, low urgency, alternate protective measures); and 3) information (need for data, contradiction and confusion, lack of trust, decreased motivation). The data from interviews with individuals who had not received a COVID-19 booster dose or bivalent vaccine despite having received a primary series of COVID-19 vaccines highlights actionable targets to address vaccine hesitancy and improve public health literacy.

Development and preclinical testing of the critical care pain observation tool for family caregiver use (CPOT-Fam).

Background and Aims: Pain assessment in noncommunicative intensive care unit (ICU) patients is challenging. For these patients, family caregivers (i.e., family members, friends) may be able to assist in pain assessment by identifying individualistic signs of pain due to their intimate patient knowledge. This study adapted the critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) to facilitate pain assessment in adult ICU patients by family caregivers. Methods: This study was conducted through three distinct phases: (1)CPOT adaptation for family caregiver use (to create the CPOT-Fam): A working group met monthly to adapt the CPOT and develop educational material and sample cases for practice scoring until consensus was reached.(2)CPOT-Fam preclinical testing: Family caregiver study participants viewed educational materials and scored four randomly selected sample cases using the CPOT-Fam. Scores were compared to reference scores to assess agreement and identify CPOT-Fam sections requiring revision. Open-ended feedback on the CPOT-Fam was collected.(3)CPOT-Fam revision: the CPOT-Fam was revised by the working group considering score agreement and feedback received from study participants. Results: Of the n = 30 participants, n = 14 (47.0%) had experience with an ICU patient. Agreement between CPOT-Fam participant scores and reference scores were highest for the vocalization dimension (Is the patient making any sounds?; Intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC = 1.0) and lowest for the body movements dimension (What are the patient's body movements like?; ICC = 0.85. Participants indicated they found the CPOT-Fam to be "informative" and "easy-to-use" but "not graphic enough"; participants also indicated that descriptors like "lack of breath" and "struggling to move" are helpful with identifying individualistic behaviors of pain exhibited by their loved ones. Conclusion: The CPOT-Fam shows ease of use and may be of value in involving family caregivers in ICU care. Clinical pilot testing is needed to determine feasibility and acceptability and identify further areas for refinement.

A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research.

BACKGROUND: Citizen engagement, or partnering with interested members of the public in health research, is becoming more common. While ongoing assessment of citizen engagement practices is considered important to its success, there is little clarity around aspects of citizen engagement that are important to assess (i.e., what to look for) and methods to assess (i.e., how to measure and/ or evaluate) citizen engagement in health research. METHODS: In this scoping review, we included peer-reviewed literature that focused primarily on method(s) to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research. Independently and in duplicate, we completed title and abstract screening and full-text screening and extracted data including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and methods to measure or evaluate citizen engagement (including characteristics of these methods). RESULTS: Our search yielded 16,762 records of which 33 records (31 peer-reviewed articles, one government report, one conference proceeding) met our inclusion criteria. Studies discussed engaging citizens (i.e., patients [n = 16], members of the public [n = 7], service users/consumers [n = 4], individuals from specific disease groups [n = 3]) in research processes. Reported methods of citizen engagement measurement and evaluation included frameworks, discussion-based methods (i.e., focus groups, interviews), survey-based methods (e.g., audits, questionnaires), and other methods (e.g., observation, prioritization tasks). Methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement commonly focused on collecting perceptions of citizens and researchers on aspects of citizen engagement including empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We found that methods to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research vary widely but share some similarities in aspect of citizen engagement considered important to measure or evaluate. These aspects could be used to devise a more standardized, modifiable, and widely applicable framework for measuring and evaluating citizen engagement in research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two citizen team members were involved as equal partners in study design and interpretation of its findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/HZCBR).

Involving members of the public (citizens) in health research is important. It helps make sure that research focuses on issues that are most important to citizens. It also helps ensure that the research done is respectful of citizen participation and most likely to provide benefit. However, the best way to engage citizens in research is unclear. In this scoping review, we examined existing studies that assessed citizen engagement in health research. We found that citizen engagement was often assessed by asking for feedback from both citizens and researchers. Feedback was collected in person (one on one interviews or group discussions) or in writing (using surveys or audits). Frameworks (organized ways of thinking about an issue) were also sometimes used to measure empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value of engaging citizens. It was clear from the frameworks that there is a need to develop clearer roles for citizens in research. The two citizen members of our research team who helped interpret our study findings felt that a set of guidelines for citizens to help them best participate in health research needs to be developed. We believe these observations could be used to create a more standard method for assessing citizen engagement in research.

Study protocol: development and pilot testing of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool for families (CPOT-Fam).

BACKGROUND: Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) often have limited ability to communicate making it more difficult to identify and effectively treat their pain. Family caregivers or close friends of critically ill patients may be able to identify signs of pain before the clinical care team and could potentially assist in routine pain assessments. This study will adapt the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) for use by family members to create the CPOT-Fam and compare family CPOT-Fam assessments with nurse-provided CPOT assessments for a given patient. METHODS: This study will be executed in two phases: 1) Development of the CPOT-Fam - A working group of patient partners, ICU clinicians, and researchers will adapt the CPOT for use by family caregivers (creating the CPOT-Fam) and produce an accompanying educational module to deliver information on pain and how to use the tool. The CPOT-Fam will undergo preclinical testing with participants (i.e., members of the public and family caregivers of critically ill adults), who will complete the educational module and provide CPOT-Fam scores on sample cases. Feedback on the CPOT-Fam will be collected. 2) Pilot testing the CPOT - Fam family caregivers of critically ill adults will complete the educational module and provide information on the following: (1) demographics, (2) anxiety, (3) caregiving self-efficacy, and (4) satisfaction with care in the ICU. Family caregivers will then provide a proxy assessment of their critically ill loved one's pain through the CPOT-Fam and also provide a subjective (i.e., questionnaire-based including open-ended responses) account of their loved one's pain status. A comparison (i.e., agreement) will be made between family caregiver provided CPOT-Fam scores and ICU nurse-provided CPOT scores (collected from the provincial health information system), calculated independently and blinded to one another. Feasibility and acceptability of the CPOT-Fam will be determined. DISCUSSION: The results of this work will produce a family caregiver CPOT (i.e., CPOT-Fam), determine feasibility and acceptability of the CPOT-Fam, and compare pain assessments conducted by family caregivers and ICU nurses. The results will inform whether a larger study to determine a role for family caregivers in ICU pain assessment using the CPOT-Fam is warranted.

A national cross-sectional survey of public perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic: Self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors.

INTRODUCTION: Efforts to mitigate the global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) have largely relied on broad compliance with public health recommendations yet navigating the high volume of evolving information can be challenging. We assessed self-reported public perceptions related to COVID-19 including, beliefs (e.g., severity, concerns, health), knowledge (e.g., transmission, information sources), and behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) to understand perspectives in Canada and to inform future public health initiatives. METHODS: We administered a national online survey aiming to obtain responses from 2000 adults in Canada. Respondent sampling was stratified by age, sex, and region. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses and tested for regional differences using chi-squared tests, followed by weighted logistic regression. RESULTS: We collected 1,996 eligible questionnaires between April 26th and May 1st, 2020. One-fifth (20%) of respondents knew someone diagnosed with COVID-19, but few had tested positive themselves (0.6%). Negative impacts of pandemic conditions were evidenced in several areas, including concerns about healthcare (e.g. sufficient equipment, 52%), pandemic stress (45%), and worsening social (49%) and mental/emotional (39%) health. Most respondents (88%) felt they had good to excellent knowledge of virus transmission, and predominantly accessed (74%) and trusted (60%) Canadian news television, newspapers/magazines, or non-government news websites for COVID-19 information. We found high compliance with distancing measures (80% reported self-isolating or always physical distancing). We identified associations between region and self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors related to COVID-19. DISCUSSION: We found that information about COVID-19 is largely acquired through domestic news sources, which may explain high self-reported compliance with prevention measures. The results highlight the broader impact of a pandemic on the general public's overall health and wellbeing, outside of personal infection. The study findings should be used to inform public health communications during COVID-19 and future pandemics.