Functional outcomes following critical illness: epidemiology, current management strategies and the future priorities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Intensive care unit (ICU) survivorship has gained significant attention over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this review, we summarize the contemporary literature in relation to the epidemiology and management of post-ICU problems. RECENT FINDINGS: Survivors of critical illness can have complex physical, social, emotional and cognitive needs in the months following hospital discharge. Emerging evidence has shown that pre-ICU characteristics such as educational attainment, alongside in-ICU factors such as delirium, may contribute to worsening outcomes. Evidence regarding the impact of post-ICU recovery services is evolving, but models such as post-ICU clinics and peer support programs are gaining rapid momentum. SUMMARY: Future research should focus on modifiable risk factors and how identification and treatment of these can improve outcomes. Furthermore, rigorous evaluation of postacute critical care recovery services is necessary.

Key Components of ICU Recovery Programs: What Did Patients Report Provided Benefit?

To understand from the perspective of patients who did, and did not attend ICU recovery programs, what were the most important components of successful programs and how should they be organized. DESIGN: International, qualitative study. SETTING: Fourteen hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. PATIENTS: We conducted 66 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of patients, 52 of whom had used an ICU recovery program and 14 whom had not. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using content analysis, prevalent themes were documented to understand what improved their outcomes. Contrasting quotes from patients who had not received certain aspects of care were used to identify perceived differential effectiveness. Successful ICU recovery programs had five key components: 1) Continuity of care; 2) Improving symptom status; 3) Normalization and expectation management; 4) Internal and external validation of progress; and 5) Reducing feelings of guilt and helplessness. The delivery of care which achieved these goals was facilitated by early involvement (even before hospital discharge), direct involvement of ICU staff, and a focus on integration across traditional disease, symptom, and social welfare needs. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, conducted across three continents, patients identified specific and reproducible modes of benefit derived from ICU recovery programs, which could be the target of future intervention refinement.

Risk Factors for Long-term Mortality and Patterns of End-of-Life Care Among Medicare Sepsis Survivors Discharged to Home Health Care.

Importance: Despite a growing recognition of the increased mortality risk among sepsis survivors, little is known about the patterns of end-of-life care among this population. Objective: To describe patterns of end-of-life care among a national sample of sepsis survivors and identify factors associated with long-term mortality risk and hospice use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed sepsis survivors who were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged to home health care using national Medicare administrative, claims, and home health assessment data from 2013 to 2014. The initial and final primary analyses were conducted in July 2017 and from July to August 2019, respectively. Exposures: Sepsis hospital discharge and 1 or more home health assessments within 1 week. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were 1-year mortality among all sepsis survivors and hospitalization in the last 30 days of life, death in an acute care hospital, and hospice use among decedents. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with 1-year mortality and hospice use. Results: Among 87 581 sepsis survivors who were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged to home health care, 49 323 (56.3%) were aged 75 years or older, 69 499 (79.4%) were non-Hispanic white, and 48 472 (55.3%) were female. Among the total survivors, 24 423 (27.9%) people died within 1 year of discharge, with a median (interquartile range) survival time of 119 (51-220) days. Among these decedents, 16 684 (68.2%) were hospitalized in the last 30 days of life, 6560 (26.8%) died in an acute care hospital, and 12 573 (51.4%) were enrolled in hospice, with 5729 (45.6%) using hospice for 7 or fewer days. Several factors were associated with 1-year mortality, including a cancer diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 3.66; 95% CI, 3.50-3.83; P < .001), multiple dependencies of activities of daily living or instrumental activities of daily living (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.57-3.05; P < .001), and an overall poor health status (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.44; P < .001) documented on home health assessment. Among the decedents, cancer was associated with hospice use (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 2.11-2.41; P < .001), patients aged 85 years or older (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.37-1.61; P < .001), and living in an assisted living setting (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.69-2.19; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that death within 1 year after sepsis discharge may be common among Medicare beneficiaries discharged to home health care. Although 1 in 2 decedents used hospice, aggressive care near the end of life and late hospice referral were common. Readily identifiable risk factors suggest opportunities to target efforts to improve palliative and end-of-life care among high-risk sepsis survivors.

Sepsis Survivors Transitioned to Home Health Care: Characteristics and Early Readmission Risk Factors.

OBJECTIVE: To profile the characteristics of growing numbers of sepsis survivors receiving home healthcare (HHC) by type of sepsis before, during, and after a sepsis hospitalization and identify characteristics significantly associated with 7-day readmission. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. Data sources included the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) and Medicare administrative and claims data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: National sample of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for sepsis who were discharged to HHC between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 (N = 165,228). METHODS: We used an indicator distinguishing among 3 types of sepsis: explicitly coded sepsis diagnosis without organ dysfunction; severe sepsis with organ dysfunction; and septic shock. We compared these subgroups' demographic, clinical and functional characteristics, comorbidities, risk factors for rehospitalization, characteristics of the index hospital stay, and predicted 7-day hospital readmission. RESULTS: The majority (80.7%) had severe sepsis, 5.7% had septic shock, and 13.6% had sepsis without acute organ system dysfunction. The medical diagnoses recorded at HHC admission identified sepsis or blood infection only 7% of the time, potentially creating difficulty identifying the sepsis survivor in HHC. Among sepsis types, septic shock survivors had the greatest illness burden profile. This study describes 12 key variables, each of which individually raises the relative 7-day readmission risk by as much as 60%. Increased risk of 7-day rehospitalization was found among those with septic shock, 3 or more previous inpatient stays, index hospital length of stay of >8 days, dyspnea, >6 functional dependencies, and other risk factors. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Implications for practice include using our findings to identify sepsis survivors who are at risk for early readmission. Assessment for these factors may profile the at-risk patient, thereby triggering the call for additional acute care intervention such as delayed discharge, or post-acute intervention such as early home visit and outpatient follow-up.

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.

Post-Acute Care Use and Hospital Readmission after Sepsis.

RATIONALE: The epidemiology of post-acute care use and hospital readmission after sepsis remains largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine the rate of post-acute care use and hospital readmission after sepsis and to examine risk factors and outcomes for hospital readmissions after sepsis. METHODS: In an observational cohort study conducted in an academic health care system (2010-2012), we compared post-acute care use at discharge and hospital readmission after 3,620 sepsis hospitalizations with 108,958 nonsepsis hospitalizations. We used three validated, claims-based approaches to identify sepsis and severe sepsis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Post-acute care use at discharge was more likely after sepsis, driven by skilled care facility placement (35.4% after sepsis vs. 15.8%; P < 0.001), with the highest rate observed after severe sepsis. Readmission rates at 7, 30, and 90 days were higher postsepsis (P < 0.001). Compared with nonsepsis hospitalizations (15.6% readmitted within 30 d), the increased readmission risk was present regardless of sepsis severity (27.3% after sepsis and 26.0-26.2% after severe sepsis). After controlling for presepsis characteristics, the readmission risk was found to be 1.51 times greater (95% CI, 1.38-1.66) than nonsepsis hospitalizations. Readmissions after sepsis were more likely to result in death or transition to hospice care (6.1% vs. 13.3% after sepsis; P < 0.001). Independent risk factors associated with 30-day readmissions after sepsis hospitalizations included age, malignancy diagnosis, hospitalizations in the year prior to the index hospitalization, nonelective index admission type, one or more procedures during the index hospitalization, and low hemoglobin and high red cell distribution width at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Post-acute care use and hospital readmissions were common after sepsis. The increased readmission risk after sepsis was observed regardless of sepsis severity and was associated with adverse readmission outcomes.

A systematic review to inform institutional decisions about the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the H1N1 influenza pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the effect of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on survival in adults with acute respiratory failure and to help inform institutional decisions about implementing an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation program or transferring patients to experienced extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. DATA SOURCES: National Guideline Clearinghouse, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice reports, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Cochrane Library, International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, and citation review. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult acute respiratory failure, reporting mortality rates for at least 10 patients in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and nonextracorporeal membrane oxygenation groups. DATA EXTRACTION: Mortality rates were abstracted for all patients and for patients with influenza. Risk ratios were meta-analyzed using random-effects methods and assessed for heterogeneity. DATA SYNTHESIS: There are no evidence-based clinical guidelines on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with influenza. Three randomized controlled trials and three cohort studies evaluated extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory failure; none reported specifically on patients with influenza. Meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials revealed significant heterogeneity in risk of mortality. The summary risk ratio found by the meta-analysis was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.22). The most recent trial found a reduction in mortality and severe disability at 6 months among patients in whom extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was considered. Observational studies suggest that extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory failure resulting from viral pneumonia is associated with improved mortality compared with other etiologies of acute respiratory failure. CONCLUSIONS: The best evidence to guide decisions regarding the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with influenza stems from trials of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory failure of all etiologies, among which significant heterogeneity exists, and from case series describing outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with influenza. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to provide a recommendation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use among patients with respiratory failure resulting from influenza. However, clinicians should consider extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within the context of other salvage therapies for acute respiratory failure.