Patients' perspectives of recovery after COVID-19 critical illness: An interview study.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is a traumatic experience, often resulting in post-intensive care syndrome, affecting people's physical, psychological, emotional, and social well-being. The early recovery period is associated with increased risk, negatively impacting longer-term outcomes. AIMS: The aims of this study were to understand the recovery and rehabilitation needs of people who survive a COVID-19 critical illness. STUDY DESIGN: An exploratory descriptive qualitative interview study with 20 survivors of COVID-19 critical illness from two community-based healthcare settings in London, England. Data collection took place September 2020-April 2021, at least 1 month after hospital discharge by telephone or virtual platform. Data were subjected to inductive thematic analysis and mapped deductively to the three core concepts of self-determination theory: autonomy, competence and relatedness. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged: traumatic experience, human connection and navigating a complex system. Participants described how societal restrictions, fear and communication problems caused by the pandemic added to their trauma and the challenge of recovery. The importance of positive human connections, timely information and support to navigate the system was emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst findings to some extent mirror those of other qualitative pre-pandemic studies, our findings highlight how the uncertainty and instability caused by the pandemic add to the challenge of recovery affecting all core concepts of self-determination (autonomy, competence, relatedness). RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Understanding survivors' perspectives of rehabilitation needs following COVID-19 critical illness is vital to delivery of safe, high-quality care. To optimize chances of effective recovery, survivors desire a specialist, co-ordinated and personalized recovery pathway, which reflects humanized care. This should be considered when planning future service provisions.

Polyhexamethylene biguanide discs versus unmedicated dressings for prevention of central venous catheter-associated infection in the intensive care unit: A pilot randomised controlled trial to assess protocol safety and feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters are prone to infectious complications, affecting morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Polyhexamethylene biguanide-impregnated discs at the catheter insertion site may prevent local and bloodstream infection; however, efficacy has not been established in a critical care setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to pilot test polyhexamethylene biguanide-impregnated discs compared to standard unmedicated dressings for central venous catheter infection prevention in critically ill patients. METHODS: This was a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial. Adults admitted to intensive care requiring a central venous catheter for >72 h were eligible. Patients with a current bloodstream infection, concurrent central venous catheter, chlorhexidine or polyhexamethylene biguanide allergy, or sensitive skin were excluded. Patients were randomised to receive standard central venous catheter dressings with/without polyhexamethylene biguanide discs. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was feasibility, defined by patient eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, missing data, and staff satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included: central line-associated infection; primary bloodstream infection; local infection; skin complications; device/dressing dwell time; serious adverse events, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 309 patients screened, 80 participants were recruited with 98% (n = 78) receiving an internal jugular catheter which dwelled for a median of 5 days (interquartile range = 4.0, 6.0). Feasibility criteria were predominantly met (recruitment 88%; retention 100%; protocol fidelity 91%); however, eligibility criteria were not met (32%; most commonly owing to short predicted catheter dwell). Staff acceptability criteria were met, with 83% of staff scoring dressing application and removal ≥7 on a numerical rating scale. There were no central line-associated bloodstream infections and no local infections. Insertion site itch occurred in 4% (control [n = 0], intervention [n = 3]) of participants, while 32% (24/76) reported pain, and 46% (35/76) tenderness. CONCLUSIONS: Polyhexamethylene biguanide discs appear safe for central venous catheter infection prevention. Feasibility of a large efficacy trial was established with some modifications to screening processes. Large, adequately powered randomised controlled trials are needed to test the infection prevention hypotheses.