Actionable processes of care important to patients and family who experienced a prolonged intensive care unit stay: Qualitative interview study.

AIM: To use positive deviance to identify actionable processes of care that may improve outcomes and experience from the perspectives of prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay survivors and family members. DESIGN: Prospective qualitative interview study in two geographically distant settings: Canada (2018/19) and the United Kingdom (2019/20). METHODS: Patient and family participant inclusion criteria comprised: aged over 18 years, ICU stay in last 2 years of over 7 days, able to recall ICU stay and provided informed consent. We conducted semi-structured in-person or telephone interviews. Data were analysed using a positive deviance approach. RESULTS: We recruited 29 participants (15 Canadian; 14 UK). Of these, 11 were survivors of prolonged ICU stay and 18 family members. We identified 22 actionable processes (16 common to Canadian and UK participants, 4 Canadian only and 2 UK only). We grouped processes under three themes: physical and functional recovery (nine processes), patient psychological well-being (seven processes) and family relations (six processes). Most commonly identified physical/functional processes were regular physiotherapy, and fundamental hygiene and elimination care. For patient psychological well-being: normalizing the environment and routines, and alleviating boredom and loneliness. For family relations: proactive communication, flexible family visiting and presence with facilities for family. Our positive deviance analysis approach revealed that incorporation of these actionable processes into clinical practice was the exception as opposed to the norm perceived driven by individual acts of kindness and empathy as opposed to standardized processes. CONCLUSION: Actionable processes of care important to prolonged ICU stay survivors and family members differ from those frequently used in ICU quality improvement (QI) tools. IMPACT: Our study emphasizes the need to develop QI tools that standardize delivery of actionable processes important to patients and families experiencing a prolonged ICU stay. As the largest healthcare professional group, nurses can play an essential role in leading this.

Meeting the needs of critical care patients after discharge home: a qualitative exploratory study of patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: With improved survival rates in critical care, increasing focus is being placed on survivorship and how best to support patients in returning to their former activity. Little is known about what support patients themselves view as important, and this has implications for the efficacy and acceptability of services provided. OBJECTIVES: To describe former critical care patients' perspectives on the support needed to optimize recovery. STUDY DESIGN: This is a qualitative exploratory study of the experiences of support received by critical care survivors. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 12 critical care survivors recruited from a charity and a patient and public involvement group. The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis to describe patterns in the participants' experiences. FINDINGS: Four themes of support were described: effective management of transfer anxiety, tailored information provision, timely access to services and a supportive social network. CONCLUSION: Survivors of critical care should be equipped with information about their critical care stay, ongoing health issues and recovery and should be provided with holistic care at home. Critical care follow up was an effective way of meeting many of these needs, but this needs to be flexible to be useful to attendees. Peer support groups (face-to-face and online) provided information, reassurance, a social network and an avenue for those who had longer-lasting problems than current services provide for. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Whilst there are commonalities in the problems faced by critical care survivors, recovery is highly individualized, and current support services do not have sufficient flexibility to cater for this. This study shows that many survivors experience after-effects of critical care that outlast the support they are given. These longer-term survivors are often excluded from research studies because of fears of recall bias, resulting in poor understanding of their experiences.

An environmental scan of online resources for informal family caregivers of ICU survivors.

PURPOSE: To collate a comprehensive repository of online resources for family caregivers of intensive care survivors to inform a recovery website and digital peer support programme. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To identify resources, we conducted an environmental scan using processes recommended by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and guided by clinical experts, former patients, and family members. We searched internet sources, professional society websites, social media, and contacted our professional networks. RESULTS: Through expert consultation we identified 16 information categories and found 301 online resources. Five categories with the most resources were: how to look after yourself/recognise anxiety or post-traumatic stress/getting mental health support (n = 63); information specific to conditions necessitating ICU admission (n = 49); multiple category resources (n = 46); symptoms of post-intensive care syndrome (n = 44); stories of lived experience (n = 23). Five categories with the least resources were physical, emotional and cognitive symptoms of post-intensive care syndrome-family (n = 1); interacting with primary care (n = 2); medical deterioration (how to recognise/what to do) (n = 2); driving and accessing the community (n = 3); end-of-life and bereavement (n = 5). Of these resources, we included 45 on our recovery website. CONCLUSION: This environmental scan identifies multiple resources addressing informational needs of family caregivers and highlights areas for resource development.

Informing the standardising of care for prolonged stay patients in the intensive care unit: A scoping review of quality improvement tools.

OBJECTIVES: To inform design of quality improvement tools specific to patients with prolonged intensive care unit stay, we determined characteristics (format/content), development, implementation and outcomes of published multi-component quality improvement tools used in the intenisve care unit irrespective of length of stay. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Scoping review searching electronic databases, trial registries and grey literature (January 2000 to January 2022). RESULTS: We screened 58,378 citations, identifying 96 studies. All tools were designed for use commencing at intensive care unit admission except three tools implemented at 3, 5 or 14 days. We identified 32 studies of locally developed checklists, 28 goal setting/structured communication templates, 23 care bundles and 9 studies of mixed format tools. Most (43 %) tools were designed for use during rounds, fewer tools were designed for use throughout the ICU day (27 %) or stay (9 %). Most studies (55 %) reported process objectives i.e., improving communication, care standardisation, or rounding efficiency. Most common clinical processes quality improvement tools were used to standardise were sedation (62, 65 %), ventilation and weaning (55, 57 %) and analgesia management (58, 60 %). 44 studies reported the effect of the tool on patient outcomes. Of these, only two identified a negative effect; increased length of stay and increased days with pain and delirium. CONCLUSION: Although we identified numerous quality improvement tools for use in the intensive care unit, few were designed to specifically address actionable processes of care relevant to the unique needs of prolonged stay patients. Tools that address these needs are urgently required. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The review protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z8MRE.

Use of mechanical insufflation exsufflation and manual techniques in an intubated adult with COVID-19 positioned in prone-A case study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The therapeutic benefits of prone positioning have been described over the last 50 years culminating in a systematic review supporting this management strategy for patients with severe hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Early work detailing treatment approaches for COVID-19 have advocated the use of prone positioning. Limited data exists regarding physiotherapy intervention in patients with COVID-19 owing to the recent emergence of this novel disease. Despite the acknowledged beneficial effects of physiotherapy on secretion clearance and lung recruitment in the general critical care population, there is a lack of evidence pertaining to physiotherapeutic intervention for acutely unwell intubated adults in prone lying. METHODS: This case study report follows the CARE case report guidelines. One patient with COVID-19 pneumonitis who underwent physiotherapy intervention in prone lying is discussed. Informed consent was gained from next of kin for data to be published. RESULTS: Treatment techniques including mechanical insufflation-exsufflation in prone were feasible and well tolerated by this patient with only transient adverse effects noted. Treatment techniques assisted with secretion clearance. DISCUSSION: Further work on safety, feasibility, and efficacy of physiotherapy intervention in patients with and without COVID-19 in prone will contribute to the evidence base on this subject.

Standardising care in the ICU: a protocol for a scoping review of tools used to improve care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of critically ill patients experience a prolonged intensive care unit stay contributing to greater physical and psychological morbidity, strain on families and cost to health systems. Quality improvement tools such as checklists concisely articulate best practices with the aim of improving quality and safety; however, these tools have not been designed for the specific needs of patients with prolonged ICU stay. The primary objective of this review will be to determine the characteristics including format and content of multicomponent tools designed to standardise or improve ICU care. Secondary objectives are to describe the outcomes reported in these tools, the type of patients and settings studied, and to understand how these tools were developed and implemented in clinical practice. METHODS: We will search the Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey, NHS evidence and Trial Registries from January 2000 onwards. We will include primary research studies (e.g. experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and qualitative studies) recruiting more than 10 adult participants admitted to ICUs, high dependency units and weaning centres regardless of length of stay, describing quality improvement tools such as structured care plans or checklists designed to standardize more than one aspect of care delivery. We will extract data on study and patient characteristics, tool design and implementation strategies and measured outcomes. Two reviewers will independently screen citations for eligible studies and perform data extraction. Data will be synthesised with descriptive statistics; we will use a narrative synthesis to describe review findings. DISCUSSION: The findings will be used to guide development of tools for use with prolonged ICU stay patients. Our group will use experience-based co-design methods to identify the most important actionable processes of care to include in quality improvement tools these patients. Such tools are needed to standardise practice and thereby improve quality of care. Illustrating the development and implementation methods used for such tools will help to guide translation of similar tools into ICU clinical practice and future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/ , DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z8MRE.

Effect of Intermittent or Continuous Feed on Muscle Wasting in Critical Illness: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness is associated with excess morbidity and mortality. Continuous feeding may suppress muscle protein synthesis as a result of the muscle-full effect, unlike intermittent feeding, which may ameliorate it. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does intermittent enteral feed decrease muscle wasting compared with continuous feed in critically ill patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a phase 2 interventional single-blinded randomized controlled trial, 121 mechanically ventilated adult patients with multiorgan failure were recruited following prospective informed consultee assent. They were randomized to the intervention group (intermittent enteral feeding from six 4-hourly feeds per 24 h, n = 62) or control group (standard continuous enteral feeding, n = 59). The primary outcome was 10-day loss of rectus femoris muscle cross-sectional area determined by ultrasound. Secondary outcomes included nutritional target achievements, plasma amino acid concentrations, glycemic control, and physical function milestones. RESULTS: Muscle loss was similar between arms (-1.1% [95% CI, -6.1% to -4.0%]; P = .676). More intermittently fed patients received 80% or more of target protein (OR, 1.52 [1.16-1.99]; P < .001) and energy (OR, 1.59 [1.21-2.08]; P = .001). Plasma branched-chain amino acid concentrations before and after feeds were similar between arms on trial day 1 (71 µM [44-98 µM]; P = .547) and trial day 10 (239 µM [33-444 µM]; P = .178). During the 10-day intervention period the coefficient of variation for glucose concentrations was higher with intermittent feed (17.84 [18.6-20.4]) vs continuous feed (12.98 [14.0-15.7]; P < .001). However, days with reported hypoglycemia and insulin usage were similar in both groups. Safety profiles, gastric intolerance, physical function milestones, and discharge destinations did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: Intermittent feeding in early critical illness is not shown to preserve muscle mass in this trial despite resulting in a greater achievement of nutritional targets than continuous feeding. However, it is feasible and safe. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02358512; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Patient and Family Centered Actionable Processes of Care and Performance Measures for Persistent and Chronic Critical Illness: A Systematic Review.

To identify actionable processes of care, quality indicators, or performance measures and their evidence base relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members including themes relating to patient/family experience. DATA SOURCES: Two authors independently searched electronic, systemic review, and trial registration databases (inception to November 2016). STUDY SELECTION: We included studies with an ICU length of stay of greater than or equal to 7 days as an inclusion criterion and reported actionable processes of care; quality improvement indicators, measures, or tools; or patient/family experience. We excluded case series/reports of less than 10 patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired authors independently extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment. DATA SYNTHESIS: We screened 13,130 references identifying 114 primary studies and 102 relevant reviews. Primary studies reported data on 24,252 participants; median (interquartile range) sample size of 70 (32-182). We identified 42 distinct actionable processes of care, the most commonly investigated related to categories of 1) weaning methods (21 studies; 27 reviews); 2) rehabilitation, mobilization, and physiotherapy (20 studies; 40 reviews); and 3) provision of information, prognosis, and family communication (14 studies; 11 reviews). Processes with limited evidence were generally more patient-centered categories such as communication, promotion of sleep, symptom management, or family support. Of the 21 randomized controlled trials, only two were considered at low risk of bias across all six domains, whereas just two cohort studies and one qualitative study were considered of high quality. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 42 distinct actionable processes of care relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their families, with most frequently studied processes relating to weaning, rehabilitation/mobilization, and family communication. Qualitative studies highlighted the need to address psychologic needs and distressing symptoms as well as enabling patient communication. Our findings are informative for clinicians and decision-makers when planning high-quality patient and family-focused care.

Characterising the research profile of the critical care physiotherapy workforce and engagement with critical care research: a UK national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the research profile of UK critical care physiotherapists including experience, training needs, and barriers and enablers to engagement in critical care research. 'Research' was defined broadly to encompass activities related to quantitative and qualitative studies, service evaluations, clinical audit and quality improvements. DESIGN: Closed-question online survey, with optional free-text responses. SETTING: UK critical care community. PARTICIPANTS: UK critical care physiotherapists, regardless of clinical grade or existing research experience. RESULTS: 268 eligible survey responses were received during the 12-week study period (21 incomplete, 7.8%). Respondents were based in university-affiliated (n=133, 49.6%) and district general (n=111, 41.4%) hospitals, and generally of senior clinical grade. Nearly two-thirds had postgraduate qualifications at master's level or above (n=163, 60.8%). Seven had a doctoral-level qualification. Respondents reported a range of research experience, predominantly data acquisition (n=144, 53.7%) and protocol development (n=119, 44.4%). Perceived research training needs were prevalent, including topics of research methods, critical literature appraisal, protocol development and statistical analysis (each reported by ≥50% respondents). Multiple formats for delivery of future research training were identified. Major barriers to research engagement included lack of protected time (n=220, 82.1%), funding (n=177, 66.0%) and perceived experience (n=151, 56.3%). Barriers were conceptually categorised into capability, opportunity and motivation themes. Key enabling strategies centred on greater information provision about clinical research opportunities, access to research training, secondment roles and professional networks. CONCLUSIONS: UK critical care physiotherapists are skilled, experienced and motivated to participate in research, including pursuing defined academic research pathways. Nonetheless wide-ranging training needs and notable barriers preclude further involvement. Strategies to harness the unique skills of this profession to enhance the quality, quantity and scope of critical care research, benefiting from a multiprofessional National Clinical Research Network, are required.

Patient- and family-centered performance measures focused on actionable processes of care for persistent and chronic critical illness: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5 to 10% of critically ill patients transition from acute critical illness to a state of persistent and in some cases chronic critical illness. These patients have unique and complex needs that require a change in the clinical management plan and overall goals of care to a focus on rehabilitation, symptom relief, discharge planning, and in some cases, end-of-life care. However, existing indicators and measures of care quality, and tools such as checklists, that foster implementation of best practices, may not be sufficiently inclusive in terms of actionable processes of care relevant to these patients. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify the processes of care, performance measures, quality indicators, and outcomes including reports of patient/family experience described in the current evidence base relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members. METHODS: Two authors will independently search from inception to November 2016: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, the Joanna Briggs Institute and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will include all study designs except case series/reports of <10 patients describing their study population (aged 18 years and older) using terms such as persistent critical illness, chronic critical illness, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Two authors will independently perform data extraction and complete risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcome is to determine actionable processes of care and interventions deemed relevant to patients experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members. Secondary outcomes include (1) performance measures and quality indicators considered relevant to our population of interest and (2) themes related to patient and family experience. DISCUSSION: We will use our systematic review findings, with data from patient, family member and clinician interviews, and a subsequent consensus building process to inform the development of quality metrics and tools to measure processes of care, outcomes and experience for patients experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016052715.