Perspectives of survivors, families and researchers on key outcomes for research in acute respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: There is heterogeneity among the outcomes evaluated in studies of survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF). AIM: To evaluate the importance of specific outcome domains to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) survivors, their family members and clinical researchers. METHODS: Nineteen outcome domains were identified from the National Institutes of Health's Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health; Society of Critical Care Medicine's Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS); as well as patient, clinician and researcher input. We surveyed ARDS survivors, family members and critical care researchers, 279 respondents in total, using a 5-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree) to rate the importance of measuring each domain in studies of ARF survivors' postdischarge outcomes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At least 80% of patients and family members supported (ie, rated 'agree' or 'strongly agree') that 15 of the 19 domains should be measured in all future studies. Among researchers, 6 of 19 domains were supported, with researchers less supportive for all domains, except survival (95% vs 72% support). Overall, four domains were supported by all groups: physical function, cognitive function, return to work or prior activities and mental health. CONCLUSION: Patient, family and researcher groups supported inclusion of outcome domains that fit within the PICS framework. Patients and family members also supported many additional domains, emphasising the importance of including patients/family, along with researchers, in consensus processes to select core outcome domains for future research studies.

Outcome Measurement in ICU Survivorship Research From 1970 to 2013: A Scoping Review of 425 Publications.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the study designs and measurement instruments used to assess physical, cognitive, mental health, and quality of life outcomes of survivors of critical illness over more than 40 years old as a first step toward developing a core outcome set of measures for future trials to improve outcomes in ICU survivors. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Published articles that included greater than or equal to one postdischarge measure of a physical, cognitive, mental health, or quality of life outcome in more than or equal to 20 survivors of critical illness published between 1970 and 2013. Instruments were classified using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. SUBJECTS: ICU survivors. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We reviewed 15,464 abstracts, and identified 425 eligible articles, including 31 randomized trials (7%), 116 cross-sectional studies (27%), and 278 cohort studies (65%). Cohort studies had a median (interquartile range) sample size of 96 survivors (52-209), with 38% not fully reporting loss to follow-up. A total of 250 different measurement instruments were used in these 425 articles. Among eligible articles, 25 measured physical activity limitations (6%), 40 measured cognitive activity limitations (9%), 114 measured mental health impairment (27%), 196 measured participation restriction (46%), and 276 measured quality of life (65%). CONCLUSIONS: Peer-reviewed publications reporting patient outcomes after hospital discharge for ICU survivors have grown from 3 in the 1970s to more than 300 since 2000. Although there is evidence of consolidation in the instruments used for measuring participation restriction and quality of life, the ability to compare results across studies remains impaired by the 250 different instruments used. Most articles described cohort studies of modest size with a single follow-up assessment using patient-reported measures of participation restriction and quality of life. Development of a core outcome set of valid, reliable, and feasible measures is essential to improving the outcomes of critical illness survivors.

A systematic review finds limited data on measurement properties of instruments measuring outcomes in adult intensive care unit survivors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a growing number of studies evaluating the physical, cognitive, mental health, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes of adults surviving critical illness. However, there is little consensus on the most appropriate instruments to measure these outcomes. To inform the development of such consensus, we conducted a systematic review of the performance characteristics of instruments measuring physical, cognitive, mental health, and HRQOL outcomes in adult intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and The Cochrane Library in March 2015. We also conducted manual searches of reference lists of eligible studies and relevant review articles. Two people independently selected studies, completed data abstraction, and assessed the quality of eligible studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) initiative checklist. RESULTS: We identified 20 studies which explicitly evaluated measurement properties for 21 different instruments assessing outcomes in ICU survivors. Eleven of the instruments assessed quality of life, with few instruments assessing other domains. Of the nine measurement properties evaluated on the COSMIN checklist, six were assessed in <10% of the evaluations. Overall quality of eligible studies was generally poor to fair based on the COSMIN checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Although an increasing number of studies measure physical, cognitive, mental health, and HRQOL outcomes in adult ICU survivors, data on the measurement properties of such instruments are sparse and generally of poor to fair quality. Empirical analyses evaluating the performance of instruments in adult ICU survivors are needed to advance research in this field.

Intensivist-reported Facilitators and Barriers to Discussing Post-Discharge Outcomes with Intensive Care Unit Surrogates. A Qualitative Study.

RATIONALE: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients' expected post-discharge outcomes are rarely discussed in family meetings despite this information being centrally important to patients and their families. OBJECTIVES: To characterize intensivist-identified barriers and facilitators to discussing post-discharge outcomes with surrogates of ICU patients. METHODS: Qualitative study conducted via one-on-one, semistructured telephone interviews with 23 intensivists from 20 hospitals with accreditation council for graduate medical education-accredited critical care medicine programs in 16 states. A limited application of grounded theory methods was used to code transcribed interviews and identify themes and illustrative quotes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intensivists reported tension between their professional responsibility to discuss likely functional outcomes versus uncertainty about their ability to predict those outcomes for an individual patient. They cited three main barriers as limiting their ability to conduct conversations about post-discharge outcomes with ICU surrogates: (1) incorrectly optimistic expectations for recovery among ICU surrogates, (2) having little or no contact with their patients after ICU discharge, and (3) minimal confidence applying existing outcomes research to individual patients. Despite these barriers, experience talking to ICU surrogates, seeing ICU survivors in the outpatient setting, and trusted research on functional outcomes were identified as important facilitators to discussing likely patient outcomes with surrogates. Intensivists generally welcomed questions from surrogates about post-discharge outcomes as opportunities to initiate conversations about prognosis and patient values. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of intensivists from 20 academic hospitals, experience conducting conversations with surrogates and interactions with ICU survivors as outpatients were identified as facilitating discussion of expected post-discharge outcomes while optimistic surrogate expectations and prognostic uncertainty were barriers. There was tension between self-perceived ability to prognosticate and belief in a professional obligation to discuss patient outcomes.