Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has yet to be demonstrated, and preliminary studies are required. The study aim was to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of NAVA versus pressure support ventilation (PSV) in critically ill adults at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV). METHODS: An open-label, parallel, feasibility RCT (n = 78) in four ICUs of one university-affiliated hospital. The primary outcome was mode adherence (percentage of time adherent to assigned mode), and protocol compliance (binary-≥ 65% mode adherence). Secondary exploratory outcomes included ventilator-free days (VFDs), sedation, and mortality. RESULTS: In the 72 participants who commenced weaning, median (95% CI) mode adherence was 83.1% (64.0-97.1%) and 100% (100-100%), and protocol compliance was 66.7% (50.3-80.0%) and 100% (89.0-100.0%) in the NAVA and PSV groups respectively. Secondary outcomes indicated more VFDs to D28 (median difference 3.0 days, 95% CI 0.0-11.0; p = 0.04) and fewer in-hospital deaths (relative risk 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9; p = 0.032) for NAVA. Although overall sedation was similar, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores were closer to zero in NAVA compared to PSV (p = 0.020). No significant differences were observed in duration of MV, ICU or hospital stay, or ICU, D28, and D90 mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility trial demonstrated good adherence to assigned ventilation mode and the ability to meet a priori protocol compliance criteria. Exploratory outcomes suggest some clinical benefit for NAVA compared to PSV. Clinical effectiveness trials of NAVA are potentially feasible and warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826890. Registered 9 April 2013.

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.

Digital peer-to-peer support programme for informal caregivers of people living with motor neuron disease: study protocol for a multi-centre parallel group, single-blinded (outcome assessor) randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Peer support is effective in improving psychological well-being of family caregivers of people with conditions such as dementia, cancer, and brain injury. However, there are limited data on effective psychological interventions for family caregivers of people living with motor neurone disease. Our objective is to evaluate the efficacy of a virtual peer support programme for improving caregiver psychological wellbeing and caregiving related outcomes. METHODS: We will conduct a multi-centre parallel group randomised controlled superiority trial. Using a multi-modal recruitment strategy, we will recruit informal caregivers from UK MND clinics, in-patient units, and hospices. We will randomise (1:1, stratified by gender) participants to either a 12-week virtual peer support programme or usual care comprising provision of online information resources publicly available via the MND Association website. Peer support programme elements will be delivered via a secure digital e-platform aTouchAway™ (Aetonix, Canada). Our target sample size is 160 (80 each arm). Our primary outcome is the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assessed at 12 weeks (primary endpoint). Secondary outcomes that will also be assessed at 12 weeks include the Zarit Burden Interview, Pearlin Mastery Scale, Personal Gain Scale, Positive Affect Scale, and the Brief COPE. Outcome assessors will be blinded to allocation. Tertiary outcomes include perceived usability (1 item 9-point Likert scale) and acceptability (semi-structured qualitative interviews) of the peer support programme. Intervention fidelity measures will comprise frequency, type (text, audio, video), and duration (audio and video) of peer support contact downloaded from the aTouchAway AWS server. We will use a mixed-effects linear model to test the effect of the intervention on the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will be analysed using linear regression. We have ethical approval (21/NW/0269) from the North-West Research Ethics Committee, UK. DISCUSSION: This single-blinded randomised controlled trial will determine the effect of a virtual peer support programme on caregiver psychological wellbeing and caregiver burden. This study will examine the impact of a virtual peer support intervention on quality-of-life measures in informal caregivers of individuals with MND living in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04695210.

Virtual visiting in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative descriptive study with ICU clinicians and non-ICU family team liaison members.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences and perceived benefits of virtual visiting from the perspectives of intensive care unit (ICU)-experienced clinicians and non-ICU-experienced family liaison team members. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Adult intensive care setting across 14 hospitals within the UK National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: ICU-experienced clinicians and non-ICU-experienced family liaison team members deployed during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Semistructured telephone/video interviews were conducted with ICU clinicians. Analytical themes were developed inductively following a standard thematic approach, using 'family-centred care' and 'sensemaking' as sensitising concepts. RESULTS: We completed 36 interviews, with 17 ICU-experienced clinicians and 19 non-ICU-experienced family liaison team members. In the context of inperson visiting restrictions, virtual visiting offered an alternative conduit to (1) restoring the family unit, (2) facilitating family involvement, and (3) enabling sensemaking for the family. Virtual visits with multiple family members concurrently and with those living in distant geographical locations restored a sense of family unit. Family involvement in rehabilitation, communication and orientation activities, as well as presence at the end of life, highlighted how virtual visiting could contribute to family-centred care. Virtual visits were emotionally challenging for many family members, but also cathartic in helping make sense of their own emotions and experience by visualising their relatives in the ICU. Being able to see and interact with loved ones and their immediate care providers afforded important cues to enable family sensemaking of the ICU experience. CONCLUSIONS: In this UK qualitative study of clinicians using virtual ICU visiting, in the absence of inperson visiting, virtual visiting was perceived positively as an alternative that promoted family-centred care through virtual presence. We anticipate the perceived benefits of virtual visiting may extend to non-pandemic conditions through improved equity and timeliness of family access to the ICU by offering an alternative option alongside inperson visiting.

Family perspectives on facilitators and barriers to the set up and conduct of virtual visiting in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To gain perspectives from family members about barriers and facilitators to virtual visit set up and conduct across intensive care unit settings in the United Kingdom to inform understanding of best practices. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study recruiting a purposive sample of family members of adult intensive care unit patients experiencing virtual visiting during Jan to May 2021 of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used semi-structured qualitative interviews and a standard Thematic Analysis approach. RESULTS: We recruited 41 family-member participants from 16 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Facilitators to successful virtual visit set-up were preparation of the family, negotiating a preferred time, and easy-to-use technology. Facilitators to successful conduct were intensive care unit team member presence; enabling family involvement in care; inclusivity, accessibility, and flexibility; and having a sense of control. Barriers that created distress or conflict included restrictive virtual visiting practices; raising expectations then failing to meet them; lack of virtual visit pre-planning; and failing to prepare the patient. Barriers to visit conduct were incorrect camera positioning, insufficient technical and staff resources, issues with three-way connectivity, and lack of call closure. Recommendations included emotional self-preparation, increased technology availability, and preparing conversation topics. CONCLUSION: These data may guide virtual visiting practices during the ongoing pandemic but also to continue virtual visiting outside of pandemic conditions. This will benefit family members suffering from ill health, living at a distance, unable to afford travel, and those with work and care commitments, thereby reducing inequities of access and promoting family-centered care.

Mapping the impact of ICU design on patients, families and the ICU team: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: Scoping review to map outcomes and describe effects of intensive care unit (ICU) design features on patients, family, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Iteratively developed search strategy executed across seven databases. We included studies (January 2007 to May 2020) exploring ICU design features using any study design. We grouped studies into 12 design features and categorized outcomes into four domains. RESULTS: Of 18,577 citations screened, 44 studies met inclusion criteria. Newly built or renovated ICUs/ICU rooms were evaluated in 27 (61%) studies; 17 (39%) evaluated existing designs/features. Most commonly evaluated design features were lighting (24, 55%), single vs multi-occupancy rooms/pods (17, 39%), and family-centered design (13, 30%). We identified 63 distinct outcomes in four domains; HCP-related (20, 45%); patient-related (20, 45%); family-related (11, 25%); and environment-related (7, 16%). Eleven (25%) studies measured patient/family-reported outcomes. In studies evaluating single occupancy rooms, three reported increased family satisfaction, two reported decreased delirium burden, while six reported negative consequences on HCP wellbeing and working. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating ICU design measure disparate outcomes. Few studies included patient/ family-reported outcomes; fewer measured objective environment characteristics. Single room layouts may benefit patients and family but contribute to adverse HCP-related outcomes.

The Role of a Liaison Team in ICU Family Communication During the COVID 19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: In the name of public safety, a general suspension on hospital visiting was imposed in the U.K., prohibiting family and friends to visit hospitalized patients, even if they were critically ill. OBJECTIVES: we aimed to assess the impact of the FLT on the communication with patients' family and friends (PFF), especailly around end-of-life care, and their interaction with CC clinicians. METHODS: A retrospective, mixed-methods analysis of a family liaison team (FLT) formed by redeployed clinicians in critical care (CC) during the first surge of the 2020 COVID 19 pandemic. RESULTS: The FLT was constituted predominantly of non-ICU consultants (30/39, 77%). Following two one-hourly webinars around basic communication skills, the FLT facilitated over 12,000 video and telephone calls with 172 patients' family and friends (PFF). The majority of the PFF interviewed were mostly, very or extremely satisfied with the frequency, ease, understanding, honesty, completeness, and consistency of the information provided. Approximately 5% of the interviewees reported to be slightly or very dissatisfied in one or more of the following 3 categories: frequency, consistency, and ease of getting the information. The thematic analysis identified 3 themes: 1) being there with/ for the patient; 2) breakdown in communication; 3) disbelief at the speed of deterioration. In 14.9% of cases there was documented discrepancy between the information transmitted by the CC team and that by the FLT, particularly around the severity of the patient's illness and their imminent death. CONCLUSION: The formation of a dedicated FLT was feasible and associated with high levels of satisfaction by the PFF. Friction was created when communication was not consistent and did not convey the severity of the patient's condition, to prepare the PFF for a bad outcome.

Communication and Virtual Visiting for Families of Patients in Intensive Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A UK National Survey.

Rationale: Restriction or prohibition of family visiting intensive care units (ICUs) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic poses substantial barriers to communication and family- and patient-centered care. Objectives: To understand how communication among families, patients, and the ICU team was enabled during the pandemic. The secondary objectives were to understand strategies used to facilitate virtual visiting and associated benefits and barriers. Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional, and self-administered electronic survey was sent (June 2020) to all 217 UK hospitals with at least one ICU. Results: The survey response rate was 54%; 117 of 217 hospitals (182 ICUs) responded. All hospitals imposed visiting restrictions, with visits not permitted under any circumstance in 16% of hospitals (28 ICUs); 63% (112 ICUs) of hospitals permitted family presence at the end of life. The responsibility for communicating with families shifted with decreased bedside nurse involvement. A dedicated ICU family-liaison team was established in 50% (106 ICUs) of hospitals. All but three hospitals instituted virtual visiting, although there was substantial heterogeneity in the videoconferencing platform used. Unconscious or sedated ICU patients were deemed ineligible for virtual visits in 23% of ICUs. Patients at the end of life were deemed ineligible for virtual visits in 7% of ICUs. Commonly reported benefits of virtual visiting were reducing patient psychological distress (78%), improving staff morale (68%), and reorientation of patients with delirium (47%). Common barriers to virtual visiting were related to insufficient staff time, rapid implementation of videoconferencing technology, and challenges associated with family members' ability to use videoconferencing technology or access a device. Conclusions: Virtual visiting and dedicated communication teams were common COVID-19 pandemic innovations addressing the restrictions to family ICU visiting, and they resulted in valuable benefits in terms of patient recovery and staff morale. Enhancing access and developing a more consistent approach to family virtual ICU visits could improve the quality of care, both during and outside of pandemic conditions.

Factors affecting the use of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in the adult critical care unit: a clinician survey.

BACKGROUND: Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) involves an intricate interaction between patient, clinician and technology. To improve our understanding of this complex intervention and to inform future trials, this survey aimed to examine clinician attitudes, beliefs and barriers to NAVA use in critically ill adults within an institution with significant NAVA experience. METHODS: A survey of nurses, doctors and physiotherapists in four Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of one UK university-affiliated hospital (75 NAVA equipped beds). The survey consisted of 39 mixed open and structured questions. The hospital had 8 years of NAVA experience prior to the survey. RESULTS: Of 466 distributed questionnaires, 301 (64.6%) were returned from 236 nurses (78.4%), 53 doctors (17.6%) and 12 physiotherapists (4.0%). Overall, 207/294 (70.4%) reported clinical experience. Most agreed that NAVA was safe (136/177, 76.8%) and clinically effective (99/176, 56.3%) and most perceived 'improved synchrony', 'improved comfort' and 'monitoring the diaphragm' to be key advantages of NAVA. 'Technical issues' (129/189, 68.3%) and 'NAVA signal problems' (94/180, 52.2%) were the most cited clinical disadvantage and cause of mode cross-over to Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV), respectively. Most perceived NAVA to be more difficult to use than PSV (105/174, 60.3%), although results were mixed when compared across different tasks. More participants preferred PSV to NAVA for initiating ventilator weaning (93/171 (54.4%) vs 29/171 (17.0%)). A key barrier to use and a consistent theme throughout was 'low confidence' in relation to NAVA use. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to broad clinician support for NAVA, this survey describes technical concerns, low confidence and a perception of difficulty above that associated with PSV. In this context, high-quality training and usage algorithms are critically important to the design and of future trials, to clinician acceptance and to the clinical implementation and future success of NAVA.