Facilitators and Barriers Influencing Antipsychotic Medication Prescribing and Deprescribing Practices in Critically Ill Adult Patients: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications do not alter the incidence or duration of delirium, but these medications are frequently prescribed and continued at transitions of care in critically ill patients when they may no longer be necessary or appropriate. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe relevant domains and constructs that influence antipsychotic medication prescribing and deprescribing practices among physicians, nurses, and pharmacists that care for critically ill adult patients during and following critical illness. DESIGN: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with critical care and ward healthcare professionals including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists to understand antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing practices for critically ill adult patients during and following critical illness. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one interviews were conducted with 11 physicians, five nurses, and five pharmacists from predominantly academic centres in Alberta, Canada, between July 6 and October 29, 2021. MAIN MEASURES: We used deductive thematic analysis using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify and describe constructs within relevant domains. KEY RESULTS: Seven TDF domains were identified as relevant from the analysis: Social/Professional role and identity; Beliefs about capabilities; Reinforcement; Motivations and goals; Memory, attention, and decision processes; Environmental context and resources; and Beliefs about consequences. Participants reported antipsychotic prescribing for multiple indications beyond delirium and agitation including patient and staff safety, sleep management, and environmental factors such as staff availability and workload. Participants identified potential antipsychotic deprescribing strategies to reduce ongoing antipsychotic medication prescriptions for critically ill patients including direct communication tools between prescribers at transitions of care. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care and ward healthcare professionals report several factors influencing established antipsychotic medication prescribing practices. These factors aim to maintain patient and staff safety to facilitate the provision of care to patients with delirium and agitation limiting adherence to current guideline recommendations.

Patient, Public, and Healthcare Professionals' Sepsis Awareness, Knowledge, and Information Seeking Behaviors: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis awareness and understanding are important aspects of prevention, recognition, and clinical management of sepsis. We conducted a scoping review to identify and map the literature related to sepsis awareness, general knowledge, and information-seeking behaviors with a goal to inform future sepsis research and knowledge translation campaigns. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a systematic search on May 3, 2021, across four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Education Research Complete). Title/abstract and full-text screening was done in duplicate. One researcher extracted the data for each included article, and a second researcher checked data accuracy. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YX7AU ). SUBJECTS: Articles related to sepsis awareness, knowledge, and information seeking behaviors among patients, public, and healthcare professionals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 5,927 unique studies, 80 reported on patient ( n = 13/80;16.3%), public ( n = 15/80;18.8%), or healthcare professional (nurses, physicians, emergency medical technicians) ( n = 48/80; 60%) awareness and knowledge of sepsis. Healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis is high compared with patients/public. The proportion of patients/public who had heard of the term sepsis ranged from 2% (Japan) to 88.6% (Germany). The proportions of patients/public who correctly identified the definition of sepsis ranged from 4.2% (Singapore) to 92% (Sweden). The results from the included studies appear to suggest that patient/public awareness of sepsis gradually improved over time. We found that the definition of sepsis was inconsistent in the literature and that few studies reported on patient, public, or healthcare professional knowledge of sepsis risk factors. Most patient/public get their sepsis information from the internet, whereas healthcare professionals get it from their role in healthcare through job training or educational training. CONCLUSIONS: Patient, public, and healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis vary globally. Future research may benefit from a consistent definition as well as country-specific data to support targeted public awareness campaigns.

Impact of Family Presence on Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of family presence on the prevalence and duration of delirium in adults admitted to an ICU. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Medical-surgical ICUs in Alberta, AB, Canada. PATIENTS: A population of 25,537 unique patients admitted at least once to an Alberta ICU. METHODS: We obtained electronic health records of consecutive adults (≥ 18 yr) admitted to one of 14 medical-surgical ICU in Alberta, Canada, from January 1, 2014, to December 30, 2018. Family presence was quantified using a validated algorithm and categorized as: 1) physical presence in ICU, 2) telephone call only, and 3) no presence (reference group). Delirium was measured using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and defined as an ICDSC greater than or equal to 4. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic and linear regression were used to evaluate the association between family presence and prevalence (binary) and duration (d) of delirium, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The association between family presence and delirium prevalence differed according to admission type and admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Among medical and emergency surgical patients irrespective of admission GCS, physical presence of family was not significantly associated with the prevalence of delirium. In elective surgical patients, physical presence of family was associated with decreased prevalence of delirium in patients with intact Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS = 15; adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97; p = 0.02). Physical presence of family (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -1.87 d; 95% CI, -2.01 to -1.81; p < 0.001) and telephone calls (AMD -1.41 d; 95% CI, -1.52 to -1.31; p < 0.001) were associated with decreased duration of delirium in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of family presence on delirium are complex and dependent on type of visitation, reason for ICU admission, and brain function on ICU admission.

Impact of restricted visitation policies during COVID-19 on critically ill adults, their families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, restricted visitation policies were enacted at acute care facilities to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and conserve personal protective equipment. In this study, we aimed to describe the impact of restricted visitation policies on critically ill patients, families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers; highlight the challenges faced in translating these policies into practice; and delineate strategies to mitigate their effects. METHOD: A qualitative description design was used. We conducted semistructured interviews with critically ill adult patients and their family members, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers (i.e., policy makers or enforcers) affected by restricted visitation policies. We transcribed semistructured interviews verbatim and analyzed the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three patients, eight family members, 30 clinicians (13 physicians, 17 nurses from 23 Canadian intensive care units [ICUs]), and three decision-makers participated in interviews. Thematic analysis was used to identify five themes: 1) acceptance of restricted visitation (e.g., accepting with concerns); 2) impact of restricted visitation (e.g., ethical challenges, moral distress, patients dying alone, intensified workload); 3) trust in the healthcare system during the pandemic (e.g., mistrust of clinical team); 4) modes of communication (e.g., communication using virtual platforms); and 5) impact of policy implementation on clinical practice (e.g., frequent changes and inconsistent implementation). CONCLUSIONS: Restricted visitation policies across ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected critically ill patients and their families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, des politiques de visite restreintes ont été adoptées dans les établissements de soins aigus afin de réduire la propagation de la COVID-19 et d'économiser les équipements de protection individuelle. Dans cette étude, nous avons cherché à décrire l'impact des politiques de visite restreintes sur les patients gravement malades, les familles, les intensivistes et les décideurs, ainsi qu'à souligner les difficultés rencontrées dans la mise en pratique de ces politiques et à définir des stratégies pour en atténuer les effets. MéTHODE: Une méthodologie de description qualitative a été utilisée. Nous avons mené des entretiens semi-structurés avec des patients adultes gravement malades et les membres de leur famille, les intensivistes et les décideurs (c.-à-d. les stratèges ou les responsables de l'application de la loi) touchés par les politiques de visite restreintes. Nous avons transcrit textuellement les entretiens semi-structurés et analysé les transcriptions à l'aide d'une analyse thématique inductive. RéSULTATS: Trois patients, huit membres de leur famille, 30 cliniciens (13 médecins, 17 infirmières de 23 unités de soins intensifs canadiennes) et trois décideurs ont participé à ces entrevues. L'analyse thématique a été utilisée pour identifier cinq thèmes : 1) l'acceptation des visites restreintes (p. ex., accepter avec des préoccupations); 2) l'impact des visites restreintes (p. ex., défis éthiques, détresse morale, patients mourant seuls, charge de travail accrue); 3) la confiance dans le système de santé pendant la pandémie (p. ex., méfiance à l'égard de l'équipe clinique); 4) les modes de communication (p. ex., communication à l'aide de plateformes virtuelles); et 5) l'incidence de la mise en œuvre des politiques sur la pratique clinique (p. ex., changements fréquents et mise en œuvre incohérente). CONCLUSION: Les politiques de visite restreintes dans les unités de soins intensifs pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 ont eu un impact négatif sur les patients gravement malades et leurs familles, les intensivistes et les décideurs.

Evidence-informed consensus statements to guide COVID-19 patient visitation policies: results from a national stakeholder meeting.

PURPOSE: Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs. METHODS: We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies. RESULTS: Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews). CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les politiques hospitalières interdisant ou limitant les visites des familles à des proches à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ont affecté les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille (SCPF). Nous avons cherché à affiner les déclarations de consensus fondées sur des données probantes afin de guider la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs pendant la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 et les pandémies futures, et dans le but d'identifier les obstacles et les critères facilitants à leur mise en œuvre et à leur adoption répandue dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes. MéTHODE: Nous avons créé des déclarations de consensus à partir de 36 expériences fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. impacts sur les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les SCPF) et 63 stratégies fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. moyens d'améliorer les restrictions des visites) identifiées au cours d'un processus Delphi modifié (décrit ailleurs). Au cours de deux réunions virtuelles d'une demi-journée tenues les 7 et 8 avril 2021, 45 intervenants (patients, familles, chercheurs, cliniciens, décideurs) ont discuté et affiné ces déclarations de consensus. Grâce à une analyse descriptive qualitative du contenu, nous avons évalué les points suivants pour 99 déclarations de consensus : 1) leur importance pour l'amélioration des politiques de restriction des visites; 2) les modifications suggérées pour les rendre plus applicables; et 3) les critères facilitants et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de ces déclarations lors de la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: En discutant, les participants ont identifié trois domaines à améliorer : 1) la clarté, 2) l'accessibilité et 3) la faisabilité. Les intervenants ont identifié plusieurs critères facilitants à la mise en œuvre (énoncés clairs, flexibles, succincts et hiérarchisés disponibles dans plusieurs modes), des obstacles (manque perçu de flexibilité, manque de partenariat entre le gouvernement et l'hôpital, fatigue du changement) et des moyens de mesurer et de surveiller leur utilisation (p. ex., satisfaction des familles, entrevues qualitatives). CONCLUSION: Les directives existantes sur les politiques qui interdisaient ou limitaient les visites dans les unités de soins intensifs étaient déroutantes, difficiles à mettre en oeuvre et manquaient souvent de données probantes à l'appui. Des déclarations de consensus hiérarchisées, succinctes et claires permettant une adaptabilité locale sont nécessaires pour guider la création de politiques de visite en soins intensifs et pour optimiser les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

A scoping review of perceptions from healthcare professionals on antipsychotic prescribing practices in acute care settings.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications are frequently prescribed in acute care for clinical indications other than primary psychiatric disorders such as delirium. Unfortunately, they are commonly continued at hospital discharge and at follow-ups thereafter. The objective of this scoping review was to characterize antipsychotic medication prescribing practices, to describe healthcare professional perceptions on antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing practices, and to report on antipsychotic deprescribing strategies within acute care. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception date to July 3, 2021 for published primary research studies reporting on antipsychotic medication prescribing and deprescribing practices, and perceptions on those practices within acute care. We included all study designs excluding protocols, editorials, opinion pieces, and systematic or scoping reviews. Two reviewers screened and abstracted data independently and in duplicate. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework prior to data abstraction (10.17605/OSF.IO/W635Z). RESULTS: Of 4528 studies screened, we included 80 studies. Healthcare professionals across all acute care settings (intensive care, inpatient, emergency department) perceived prescribing haloperidol (n = 36/36, 100%) most frequently, while measured prescribing practices reported common quetiapine prescribing (n = 26/36, 76%). Indications for antipsychotic prescribing were delirium (n = 48/69, 70%) and agitation (n = 20/69, 29%). Quetiapine (n = 18/18, 100%) was most frequently prescribed at hospital discharge. Three studies reported in-hospital antipsychotic deprescribing strategies focused on pharmacist-driven deprescribing authority, handoff tools, and educational sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived antipsychotic prescribing practices differed from measured prescribing practices in acute care settings. Few in-hospital deprescribing strategies were described. Ongoing evaluation of antipsychotic deprescribing strategies are needed to evaluate their efficacy and risk.

Co-development of a transitions in care bundle for patient transitions from the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods analysis of a stakeholder consensus meeting.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing transitions in care are at increased risk of adverse events and gaps in medical care. We evaluated existing patient- and family-centered transitions in care tools and identified facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle in critically ill adults (i.e., a collection of evidence-based patient- and family-centred tools to improve outcomes during and after transitions from the intensive care unit [ICU] to hospital ward or community). METHODS: We conducted a concurrent mixed methods (quan + QUAL) study, including stakeholders with experience in ICU transitions in care (i.e., patient/family partners, researchers, decision-makers, providers, and other knowledge-users). First, participants scored existing transitions in care tools using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) framework. Transitions in care tools were discussed by stakeholders and either accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected if consensus was achieved (≥70% agreement). We summarized quantitative results using frequencies and medians. Second, we conducted a qualitative analysis of participant discussions using grounded theory principles to elicit factors influencing AGREE-II scores, and to identify barriers, facilitators, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle. RESULTS: Twenty-nine stakeholders attended. Of 18 transitions in care tools evaluated, seven (39%) tools were accepted with modifications, one (6%) tool was rejected, and consensus was not reached for ten (55%) tools. Qualitative analysis found that participants' AGREE-II rankings were influenced by: 1) language (e.g., inclusive, balance of jargon and lay language); 2) if the tool was comprehensive (i.e., could stand alone); 3) if the tool could be individualized for each patient; 4) impact to clinical workflow; and 5) how the tool was presented (e.g., brochure, video). Participants discussed implementation considerations for a patient- and family-centered transitions in care bundle: 1) delivery (e.g., tool format and timing); 2) continuity (e.g., follow-up after ICU discharge); and 3) continuous evaluation and improvement (e.g., frequency of tool use). Participants discussed existing facilitators (e.g., collaboration and co-design) and barriers (e.g., health system capacity) that would impact application of a transitions in care bundle. CONCLUSIONS: Findings will inform future research to develop a transitions in care bundle for transitions from the ICU, co-designed with patients, families, providers, researchers, decision-makers, and knowledge-users.

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.

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.

Associations between caregiver-detected delirium and symptoms of depression and anxiety in family caregivers of critically ill patients: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Witnessing delirium can be distressing for family caregivers (i.e., relatives or friends) of critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate associations between caregiver-detected delirium in critically ill patients and depression and anxiety symptoms in their family caregivers. METHODS: Consecutive adult patient-caregiver dyads were enrolled from a 28-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit. Patient delirium was screened for daily by family caregivers using the Sour Seven instrument. Family caregivers completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) instruments daily to assess their own depression and anxiety symptoms. Response feature analysis was used to handle repeated measures. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were completed. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven patient-caregiver dyads were enrolled. Clinically significant symptoms of depression and anxiety occurred in 27% and 35% of family caregivers, respectively. Caregiver-detected delirium occurred in 65% of patients, and was not associated with clinically significant caregiver depression (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.4, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 0.6-3.1) or anxiety (OR 1.2, 95%CI 0.6-2.6) symptoms. When stratified by Sour Seven scores, scores 1-3 and 4-9 were associated with increased symptoms of anxiety (OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.3-7.0) and depression (OR 2.6, 95%CI 1.1-6.1) in family caregivers. Caregiver-detected delirium score was associated with severity of family caregiver anxiety symptoms (coefficient 0.2, 95%CI 0.1-0.4), but not depression symptoms (coefficient 0.2, 95%CI -0.0-0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver-detected patient delirium was associated with increased depression and anxiety symptoms in family caregivers of critically ill patients. Further randomized research is required to confirm these associations.

Experiences and management of physician psychological symptoms during infectious disease outbreaks: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians experienced unprecedented levels of burnout. The uncertainty of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic along with increased workload and difficult medical triage decisions may lead to a further decline in physician psychological health. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for primary research from database inception (Medline [1946], EMBASE [1974], PsycINFO [1806]) to November 17, 2020. Titles and abstracts were screened by one of three reviewers and full-text article screening and data abstraction were conducted independently, and in duplicate, by three reviewers. RESULTS: From 6223 unique citations, 480 articles were reviewed in full-text, with 193 studies (of 90,499 physicians) included in the final review. Studies reported on physician psychological symptoms and management during seven infectious disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], three strains of Influenza A virus [H1N1, H5N1, H7N9], Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS], and COVID-19) in 57 countries. Psychological symptoms of anxiety (14.3-92.3%), stress (11.9-93.7%), depression (17-80.5%), post-traumatic stress disorder (13.2-75.2%) and burnout (14.7-76%) were commonly reported among physicians, regardless of infectious disease outbreak or country. Younger, female (vs. male), single (vs. married), early career physicians, and those providing direct care to infected patients were associated with worse psychological symptoms. INTERPRETATION: Physicians should be aware that psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression, fear and distress are common, manifest differently and self-management strategies to improve psychological well-being exist. Health systems should implement short and long-term psychological supports for physicians caring for patients with COVID-19.

Patients, family members and providers perceive family-administered delirium detection tools in the adult ICU as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping: a qualitative focus group study.

PURPOSE: While studies report on perceptions of family participation in delirium prevention, little is known about the use of family-administered delirium detection tools in the care of critically ill patients. This study sought the perspectives of patients, their family members, and healthcare providers on the use of family-administered delirium detection tools to detect delirium in critically ill patients and barriers and facilitators to using family-administered delirium detection tools in patient care. METHODS: In this qualitative study, critical care providers (five physicians, six registered nurses) and participants from the Family ICU Delirium Detection Study (seven past patients and family members) took part in four focus groups at one hospital in Calgary, Alberta. RESULTS: Key themes identified following thematic analysis from 18 participants included: 1) perceptions of acceptability of family-administered delirium detection (e.g., family feels valued, intensive care unit (ICU) care team may not use a family member's results, intensification of work load), 2) considerations regarding feasibility (e.g., insufficient knowledge, healthcare team buy-in), and 3) overarching strategies to support implementation into routine patient care (e.g., value of family-administered delirium detection for patients and families is well understood in the clinical context, regular communication between the family and ICU providers, an electronic version of the tool). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, family members and healthcare providers who participated in the focus groups perceived family participation in delirium detection and the use of family-administered delirium detection tools at the bedside as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03379129); registered 15 December 2017.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Bien que certaines études rapportent les perceptions concernant la participation de la famille à la prévention du delirium, on connaît peu l'utilisation d'outils de détection du delirium administrés par la famille dans les soins aux patients gravement malades. Cette étude a cherché à connaître les points de vue des patients, des membres de leur famille et des fournisseurs de soins de santé concernant l'utilisation d'outils de détection de delirium administrés par la famille pour dépister le delirium chez les patients gravement malades. Nous nous sommes aussi intéressés aux obstacles et aux éléments facilitateurs d'une utilisation d'outils de détection du delirium administrés par la famille dans les soins aux patients. MéTHODE: Dans le cadre de cette étude qualitative, les fournisseurs de soins intensifs (cinq médecins, six infirmières) et les participants de l'Étude sur la détection familiale du delirium aux soins intensifs (sept anciens patients et des membres de leur famille) ont participé à quatre groupes de discussion dans un hôpital de Calgary, en Alberta. RéSULTATS: Les principaux thèmes identifiés à la suite de l'analyse thématique de 18 participants étaient les suivants : 1) les perceptions de l'acceptabilité de la détection du delirium administrée par la famille (p. ex., la famille se sent valorisée, l'équipe de soins intensifs (USI) pourrait ne pas utiliser les résultats d'un membre de la famille, l'augmentation de la charge de travail), 2) les considérations concernant la faisabilité (par ex., connaissances insuffisantes, endossement par l'équipe de soins), et 3) les stratégies globales pour appuyer la mise en œuvre de cette modalité dans les soins de routine (p. ex., la valeur de la détection du delirium administrée par la famille pour les patients et les familles est bien comprise dans le contexte clinique, la communication régulière entre la famille et les fournisseurs de soins intensifs, une version électronique de l'outil). CONCLUSION: Les patients, les membres de la famille et les fournisseurs de soins de santé qui ont participé aux groupes de discussion ont perçu la participation de la famille à la détection du delirium et l'utilisation d'outils de détection du delirium administrés par la famille au chevet comme étant faisables et utiles pour les soins aux patients et les membres de la famille. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03379129); enregistrée le 15 décembre 2017.

An environmental scan of visitation policies in Canadian intensive care units during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: In response to the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2, hospitals in Canada enacted temporary visitor restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19 and preserve personal protective equipment supplies. This study describes the extent, variation, and fluctuation of Canadian adult intensive care unit (ICU) visitation policies before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of Canadian hospital visitation policies throughout the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted a two-phased study analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: We collected 257 documents with reference to visitation policies (preCOVID, 101 [39%]; midCOVID, 71 [28%]; and lateCOVID, 85 [33%]). Of these 257 documents, 38 (15%) were ICU-specific and 70 (27%) referenced the ICU. Most policies during the midCOVID/lateCOVID pandemic period allowed no visitors with specific exceptions (e.g., end-of-life). Framework analysis revealed five overarching themes: 1) reasons for restricted visitation policies; 2) visitation policies and expectations; 3) exceptions to visitation policy; 4) patient and family-centred care; and 5) communication and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, most Canadian hospitals had public-facing visitor restriction policies with specific exception categories, most commonly for patients at end-of-life, patients requiring assistance, or COVID-19 positive patients (varying from not allowed to case-by-case). Further studies are needed to understand the consistency with which visitation policies were operationalized and how they may have impacted patient- and family-centred care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: En réponse à la propagation rapide du SRAS-CoV-2, les hôpitaux du Canada ont adopté des restrictions temporaires pour les visites afin de limiter la propagation de la COVID-19 et de préserver les stocks d'équipements de protection individuelle. Cette étude décrit l'ampleur, les variations et fluctuations des politiques canadiennes concernant les visites aux unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes avant et pendant la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de milieu des politiques hospitalières canadiennes concernant les visites tout au long de la première vague de la pandémie. Nous avons mené une étude en deux phases analysant des données quantitatives et qualitatives. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recueilli 257 documents faisant référence aux politiques de visites (pré-COVID, 101 [39 %]; mid-COVID, 71 [28 %]; et COVID-tardif, 85 [33 %]). Sur ces 257 documents, 38 (15 %) étaient spécifiques aux USI et 70 (27 %) faisaient référence aux USI. La plupart des politiques au cours de la période pandémique mid-COVID/COVID-tardif ne permettaient aucune visite sauf exception spécifique (p. ex., fin de vie). L'analyse du cadre a révélé cinq thèmes généraux : 1) les raisons des restrictions des politiques de visites; 2) les politiques et attentes en matière de visites; 3) les exceptions aux politiques de visites; 4) les soins aux patients et centrés sur la famille; et 5) la communication et la transparence. CONCLUSION: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, la plupart des hôpitaux canadiens avaient des politiques de restriction des visites s'appliquant au public avec des catégories d'exception spécifiques, le plus souvent pour les patients en fin de vie, les patients nécessitant de l'aide ou les patients COVID-positifs (variant d'une interdiction au cas par cas). D'autres études sont nécessaires pour comprendre l'uniformité avec laquelle les politiques de visites ont été mises en œuvre et comment elles ont pu avoir une incidence sur les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

The impact of patient delirium in the intensive care unit: patterns of anxiety symptoms in family caregivers.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the association of patient delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) with patterns of anxiety symptoms in family caregivers when delirium was determined by clinical assessment and family-administered delirium detection. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, consecutive adult patients anticipated to remain in the ICU for longer than 24 h were eligible for participation given at least one present family caregiver (e.g., spouse, friend) provided informed consent (to be enrolled as a dyad) and were eligible for delirium detection (i.e., Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score ≥ - 3). Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) was used to assess self-reported symptoms of anxiety. Clinical assessment (Confusion Assessment Method for ICU, CAM-ICU) and family-administered delirium detection (Sour Seven) were completed once daily for up to five days. RESULTS: We included 147 family caregivers; the mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation [SD] 14.3 years) and 74% (n = 129) were female. Fifty (34% [95% confidence interval [CI] 26.4-42.2]) caregivers experienced clinically significant symptoms of anxiety (median GAD-7 score 16.0 [interquartile range 6]). The most prevalent symptoms of anxiety were "Feeling nervous, anxious or on edge" (96.0% [95%CI 85.2-99.0]); "Not being able to stop or control worrying" (88.0% [95%CI 75.6-94.5]; "Worrying too much about different things" and "Feeling afraid as if something awful might happen" (84.0% [95%CI 71.0-91.8], for both). Family caregivers of critically ill adults with delirium were significantly more likely to report "Worrying too much about different things" more than half of the time (CAM-ICU, Odds Ratio [OR] 2.27 [95%CI 1.04-4.91]; Sour Seven, OR 2.28 [95%CI 1.00-5.23]). CONCLUSIONS: Family caregivers of critically ill adults with delirium frequently experience clinically significant anxiety and are significantly more likely to report frequently worrying too much about different things. Future work is needed to develop mental health interventions for the diversity of anxiety symptoms experienced by family members of critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03379129 ).

Allocation of intensive care resources during an infectious disease outbreak: a rapid review to inform practice.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed sustained demand on health systems globally, and the capacity to provide critical care has been overwhelmed in some jurisdictions. It is unknown which triage criteria for allocation of resources perform best to inform health system decision-making. We sought to summarize and describe existing triage tools and ethical frameworks to aid healthcare decision-making during infectious disease outbreaks. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of triage criteria and ethical frameworks for the allocation of critical care resources during epidemics and pandemics. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and SCOPUS from inception to November 3, 2020. Full-text screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in duplicate by three reviewers. Articles were included if they were primary research, an adult critical care setting, and the framework described was related to an infectious disease outbreak. We summarized each triage tool and ethical guidelines or framework including their elements and operating characteristics using descriptive statistics. We assessed the quality of each article with applicable checklists tailored to each study design. RESULTS: From 11,539 unique citations, 697 full-text articles were reviewed and 83 articles were included. Fifty-nine described critical care triage protocols and 25 described ethical frameworks. Of these, four articles described both a protocol and ethical framework. Sixty articles described 52 unique triage criteria (29 algorithm-based, 23 point-based). Few algorithmic- or point-based triage protocols were good predictors of mortality with AUCs ranging from 0.51 (PMEWS) to 0.85 (admitting SOFA > 11). Most published triage protocols included the substantive values of duty to provide care, equity, stewardship and trust, and the procedural value of reason. CONCLUSIONS: This review summarizes available triage protocols and ethical guidelines to provide decision-makers with data to help select and tailor triage tools. Given the uncertainty about how the COVID-19 pandemic will progress and any future pandemics, jurisdictions should prepare by selecting and adapting a triage tool that works best for their circumstances.

Partnering With Family Members to Detect Delirium in Critically Ill Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of family-administered tools to detect delirium in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Large, tertiary care academic hospital in a single-payer health system. PATIENTS: Consecutive, eligible patients with at least one family member present (dyads) and a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale greater than or equal to -3, no primary direct brain injury, the ability to provide informed consent (both patient and family member), the ability to communicate with research staff, and anticipated to remain admitted in the ICU for at least a further 24 hours to complete all assessments at least once. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Family-administered delirium assessments (Family Confusion Assessment Method and Sour Seven) were completed once daily. A board-certified neuropsychiatrist and team of ICU research nurses conducted the reference standard assessments of delirium (based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria) once daily for a maximum of 5 days. The mean age of the 147 included patients was 56.1 years (SD, 16.2 yr), 61% of whom were male. Family members (n = 147) were most commonly spouses (n = 71, 48.3%) of patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on the Family Confusion Assessment Method was 65.0% (95% CI, 60.0-70.0%), 71.0% (95% CI, 66.0-76.0%) for possible delirium (cutpoint of 4) on the Sour Seven and 67.0% (95% CI, 62.0-72.0%) for delirium (cutpoint of 9) on the Sour Seven. These area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were lower than the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (standard of care) and Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. Combining the Family Confusion Assessment Method or Sour Seven with the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist or Confusion Assessment Method for ICU resulted in area under the receiver operating characteristic curves that were not significantly better, or worse for some combinations, than the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist or Confusion Assessment Method for ICU alone. Adding the Family Confusion Assessment Method and Sour Seven to the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist and Confusion Assessment Method for ICU improved sensitivity at the expense of specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Family-administered delirium detection is feasible and has fair, but lower diagnostic accuracy than clinical assessments using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist and Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. Family proxy assessments are essential for determining baseline cognitive function. Engaging and empowering families of critically ill patients warrant further study.

The association of delirium severity with patient and health system outcomes in hospitalised patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: delirium is an acute state of confusion that affects >20% of hospitalised patients. Recent literature indicates that more severe delirium may lead to worse patient outcomes and health system outcomes, such as increased mortality, cognitive impairment and length of stay (LOS). METHODS: using systematic review methodology, we summarised associations between delirium severity and patient or health system outcomes in hospitalised adults. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus databases with no restrictions, from inception to 25 October 2018. We included original observational research conducted in hospitalised adults that reported on associations between delirium severity and patient or health system outcomes. Quality of included articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The level of evidence was quantified based on the consistency of findings and quality of studies reporting on each outcome. RESULTS: we included 20 articles evaluating associations that reported: mortality (n = 11), cognitive ability (n = 3), functional ability (n = 3), patient distress (n = 1), quality of life (n = 1), hospital LOS (n = 4), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (n = 2) and discharge home (n = 2). There was strong-level evidence that delirium severity was associated with increased ICU LOS and a lower proportion of patients discharged home. There was inconclusive evidence for associations between delirium severity and mortality, hospital LOS, functional ability, cognitive ability, patient distress and quality of life. CONCLUSION: delirium severity is associated with increased ICU LOS and a lower proportion of patients discharged home. Delirium severity may be a useful adjunct to existing delirium screening to determine the burden to health care system resources.

Effectiveness of an intensive care unit family education intervention on delirium knowledge: a pre-test post-test quasi-experimental study.

PURPOSE: To create, validate, and refine an intensive care unit (ICU) delirium education intervention to prepare family members to partner with the ICU care team to detect delirium symptoms and prevent and manage delirium using nonpharmacological strategies. METHODS: In this pre-test post-test quasi-experimental study, consecutive eligible family members of critically ill patients admitted to an ICU completed an ICU Family Education Delirium intervention in two parts: 1) six-minute video on ICU delirium (risk factors, prevention/management, symptoms, communication with the ICU care team), and 2) two case vignettes to practice detecting delirium using family-administered delirium detection questionnaires (Family Confusion Assessment Method [FAM-CAM] and Sour Seven). Family members' delirium knowledge was measured before, immediately after, and two weeks following the intervention using the Caregiver ICU Delirium Knowledge Questionnaire (CIDKQ). RESULTS: Of 99 family members recruited over eight months, 81 (82%) completed the intervention and 63 (63/81, 78%) completed all follow-up questionnaires. Family members' delirium knowledge improved significantly following the intervention (pre-CIDKQ, 14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13 to 15; post-CIDKQ, 17; 95% CI, 16 to 17; P < 0.001) and was retained two weeks after the intervention (CIDKQ 16; 95% CI, 16 to 17; P < 0.001). This included increased knowledge regarding delirium risk factors (e.g., medication, mechanical ventilation), prevention/management (e.g., orientation, day/night routine), and symptoms of delirium. More family members correctly detected delirium symptoms in case vignettes using the Sour Seven (92%) compared with the FAM-CAM (78%). CONCLUSIONS: A video-based ICU delirium education intervention is effective in educating family members about prevention, detection, and management of delirium.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Notre objectif était de créer, valider et améliorer une intervention de formation sur le delirium à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) afin de préparer les membres de la famille à coopérer avec l'équipe de soins de l'USI pour dépister les symptômes de delirium ainsi que prévenir et prendre en charge le delirium à l'aide de stratégies non pharmacologiques. MéTHODE: Dans cette étude quasi expérimentale avant après, les membres éligibles consécutifs de familles de patients en état critique admis dans une USI ont pris part à une formation familiale sur le delirium à deux volets : 1) le visionnement d'une vidéo de six minutes sur le delirium à l'USI (facteurs de risque, prévention/prise en charge, symptômes, communication avec l'équipe de soins de l'USI), et 2) deux vignettes pour pratiquer le dépistage du delirium à l'aide de questionnaires de dépistage du delirium administrés par la famille (Méthode d'évaluation de la confusion par la famille [FAM-CAM] et Questionnaire de dépistage du delirium 'Sour Seven'). Les connaissances sur le delirium des membres de la famille étaient mesurées avant, immédiatement après et deux semaines après l'intervention à l'aide d'un Questionnaire sur les connaissances des aidants concernant le délirium à l'USI (CIDKQ). RéSULTATS: Parmi les 99 membres de famille recrutés au cours d'une période de huit mois, 81 (82 %) ont complété l'intervention et 63 (63/81, 78 %) ont complété tous les questionnaires de suivi. Les connaissances des membres de la famille sur le delirium se sont significativement améliorées après l'intervention (pré-questionnaire, 14; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 13 à 15; post-questionnaire, 17; IC 95 %, 16 à 17; P < 0,001) et étaient retenues deux semaines après l'intervention (questionnaire 16; IC 95 %, 16 à 17; P < 0,001). Cette amélioration était notable dans les catégories de connaissances en matière de facteurs de risque de delirium (par ex., la médication, la ventilation mécanique), de prévention et de prise en charge (par ex., l'orientation, la routine jour/nuit), et des symptômes de delirium. Un nombre plus élevé de membres des familles est parvenu à dépister correctement les symptômes de delirium dans les vignettes à l'aide du questionnaire Sour Seven (92 %) comparativement au FAM-CAM (78 %). CONCLUSION: Le visionnement d'une vidéo de formation sur le delirium à l'USI est efficace pour former les membres des familles quant à la prévention, le dépistage et la prise en charge du delirium.

Psychometric evaluation of the family caregiver ICU delirium knowledge questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common condition in critically ill patients, affecting nearly half of all patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Family caregivers of critically ill patients can be partners in the early recognition, prevention and management of delirium provided they are aware of the signs/symptoms and appropriate non-pharmacological strategies that might be taken. Valid, reliable instruments that assess family caregiver knowledge are essential so that nurses can prepare family caregivers to be effective partners. The purpose of the current study was to (a) adapt an existing caregiver delirium knowledge questionnaire (CDKQ) for use by nurses to measure a family caregiver's delirium knowledge in the ICU; and (b) examine the psychometric properties and structure of the adapted Caregiver ICU Delirium Knowledge Questionnaire (CIDKQ). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a multidisciplinary team developed the 21-item CIDKQ (possible score range: 0-21) and administered it to 158 family caregivers of critically ill patients. Descriptive statistics were examined for all variables. The CIDKQ was analyzed for face validity, content validity, reliability and internal consistency. RESULTS: The mean CIDKQ score was 14.1 (SD: 3.5, range = 2 to 21). Path analysis revealed that a family caregiver's delirium knowledge in the actions and symptoms dimensions had a direct effect on knowledge of delirium risk factors. The CIDKQ was found to have face validity and reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicated good validity and reliability of the CIDKQ as a measure of ICU delirium knowledge in family caregivers of critically ill patients.

A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of family-partnered delirium prevention, detection, and management in critically ill adults: the ACTIVATE study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is very common in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and results in negative long-term outcomes. Family members are also at risk of long-term complications, including depression and anxiety. Family members are frequently at the bedside and want to be engaged; they know the patient best and may notice subtle changes prior to the care team. By engaging family members in delirium care, we may be able to improve both patient and family outcomes by identifying delirium sooner and capacitating family members in care. METHODS: The primary aim of this study is to determine the effect of family-administered delirium prevention, detection, and management in critically ill patients on family member symptoms of depression and anxiety, compared to usual care. One-hundred and ninety-eight patient-family dyads will be recruited from four medical-surgical ICUs in Calgary, Canada. Dyads will be randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group. The intervention consists of family-partnered delirium prevention, detection, and management, while the control group will receive usual care. Delirium, depression, and anxiety will be measured using validated tools, and participants will be followed for 1- and 3-months post-ICU discharge. All analyses will be intention-to-treat and adjusted for pre-identified covariates. Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (REB19-1000) and the trial registered. The protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist. DISCUSSION: Critically ill patients are frequently unable to participate in their own care, and partnering with their family members is particularly important for improving experiences and outcomes of care for both patients and families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered September 23, 2019 on Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04099472.