"Like fighting a fire with a water pistol": A qualitative study of the work experiences of critical care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: To understand the experience of critical care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic, through the application of the Job-Demand-Resource model of occupational stress. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: Twenty-eight critical care nurses (CCN) working in ICU in the UK NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic took part in semi-structured interviews between May 2021 and May 2022. Interviews were guided by the constructs of the Job-Demand Resource model. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: The most difficult job demands were the pace and amount, complexity, physical and emotional effort of their work. Prolonged high demands led to CCN experiencing emotional and physical exhaustion, burnout, post-traumatic stress symptoms and impaired sleep. Support from colleagues and supervisors was a core job resource. Sustained demands and impaired physical and psychological well-being had negative organizational consequences with CCN expressing increased intention to leave their role. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of high demands and reduced resources had negative impacts on the psychological well-being of nurses which is translating into increased consideration of leaving their profession. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The full impacts of the pandemic on the mental health of CCN are unlikely to resolve without appropriate interventions. IMPACT: Managers of healthcare systems should use these findings to inform: (i) the structure and organization of critical care workplaces so that they support staff to be well, and (ii) supportive interventions for staff who are carrying significant psychological distress as a result of working during and after the pandemic. These changes are required to improve staff recruitment and retention. REPORTING METHOD: We used the COREQ guidelines for reporting qualitative studies. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Six CCN provided input to survey content and interview schedule. Two authors and members of the study team (T.S. and S.C.) worked in critical care during the pandemic.

Work-related stress: the impact of COVID-19 on critical care and redeployed nurses: a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: We need to understand the impact of COVID-19 on critical care nurses (CCNs) and redeployed nurses and National Health Service (NHS) organisations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods study (QUANT-QUAL), underpinned by a theoretical model of occupational stress, the Job Demand-Resources Model (JD-R). Participants are critical care and redeployed nurses from Scottish and three large English units.Phase 1 is a cross-sectional survey in part replicating a pre-COVID-19 study and results will be compared with this data. Linear and logistic regression analysis will examine the relationship between antecedent, demographic and professional variables on health impairment (burnout syndrome, mental health, post-traumatic stress symptoms), motivation (work engagement, commitment) and organisational outcomes (intention to remain in critical care nursing and quality of care). We will also assess the usefulness of a range of resources provided by the NHS and professional organisations.To allow in-depth exploration of individual experiences, phase 2 will be one-to-one semistructured interviews with 25 CCNs and 10 redeployed nurses. The JD-R model will provide the initial coding framework to which the interview data will be mapped. The remaining content will be analysed inductively to identify and chart content that is not captured by the model. In this way, the adequacy of the JD-R model is examined robustly and its expression in this context will be detailed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted from the University of Aberdeen CERB2020101993. We plan to disseminate findings at stakeholder events, publish in peer-reviewed journals and at present at national and international conferences.

Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a partially randomised controlled trial examining interventions to improve psychological health after discharge from the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to support psychological recovery after critical illness, including information provision via an intensive care unit (ICU) diary or discharge summary, have been widely adopted in some regions, albeit without strong empirical evidence. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability, for patients, family members, and clinicians, of information provision via an ICU diary or discharge summary to support psychological recovery for critical illness survivors. METHODS: This was a pilot, partially randomised patient preference study in a mixed ICU in a tertiary hospital in Australia. Eligible patients were those in the ICU for >24 h and who were able to converse in English. Interventions were ICU diary or discharge summary compared with usual care. Feasibility was assessed throughout the study process, and acceptability assessed 3 and 6 months after hospital discharge, with data analysed descriptively and thematically. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were recruited; 45 completed 3-month follow-up (74%), and 37 (61%), 6-month follow-up. Participants were medical (39%), surgical (30%), and trauma (31%) patients; aged 55 [interquartile range (IQR): 36-67] years; and stayed in the ICU for 7 [IQR: 3-13] days and hospital for 23 [IQR: 14-32] days. Within the partially randomised framework, 34 patients chose their intervention - four chose usual care, 10 ICU diary, and 20 discharge summary. The remaining 27 patients were randomised - nine usual care, 10 ICU diary, and seven discharge summary. The majority (>90%) considered each intervention helpful during recovery; however, a significant proportion of patients reported distress associated with reading the ICU diary (42%) or discharge summary (15%). Clinicians reported they were hesitant to make diary entries. CONCLUSIONS: When given a choice, more patients chose a discharge summary over the ICU diary or usual care. Participants considered both interventions acceptable. Given the reports of distress associated with information provision, clear empirical evidence is required to determine effectiveness, optimal timing, support needed, and for whom they should be used. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001079538.

A family intervention to reduce delirium in hospitalised ICU patients: A feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Family members could play an important role in preventing and reducing the development of delirium in Intensive Care Units (ICU) patients. This study sought to assess the feasibility of design and recruitment, and acceptability for family members and nurses of a family delivered intervention to reduce delirium in ICU patients. METHOD: A single centre randomised controlled trial in an Australian medical/surgical ICU was conducted. Sixty-one family members were randomised (29 in intervention and 32 in non-intervention group). Following instructions, the intervention comprised the family members providing orientation or memory clues (family photographs, orientation to surroundings) to their relative each day. In addition, family members conducted sensory checks (vision and hearing with glasses and hearing aids); and therapeutic or cognitive stimulation (discussing family life, reminiscing) daily. Eleven ICU nurses were interviewed to gain insight into the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the intervention from their perspective. RESULTS: Recruitment rate was 28% of eligible patients (recruited n=90, attrition n=1). Following instruction by the research nurse the family member delivered the intervention which was assessed to be feasible and acceptable by family members and nurses. Protocol adherence could be improved with alternative data collection methods. Nurses considered the activities acceptable. CONCLUSION: The study was able to recruit, randomise and retain family member participants. Further strategies are required to assess intervention fidelity and improve data collection.

Perspectives of patients and family members regarding psychological support using intensive care diaries: An exploratory mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Diaries summarizing intensive care are routine practice in some countries, although evidence to support diary use is limited. The purpose of this study was to identify whether distress post-intensive care influences patients' and relatives' choice as to whether they would like to receive a diary and what information delivery method is preferred. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intensive care patients admitted for at least 3 days and their relatives participated in an exploratory mixed methods study. Interviews were conducted 3 to 5 months after discharge. Psychological distress was assessed using Kessler-10 and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Checklist - 5. Perceptions of benefit of diaries were assessed using a 4-point Likert scale. Differences were examined using Fisher exact test (P<.05). RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients and 22 relatives consented to participation, with 22 patients and 22 relatives interviewed before data saturation. Psychological distress was evident in 25 (47%) patients and 5 (23%) relatives. Participants' psychological health was similar for those who perceived diaries as beneficial, and those who did not. Themes included memory, process, and impact, although opinions were diverse. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and relative preferences of receiving a diary are not related to psychological distress. Diverse opinions around common themes suggest the need for a range of interventions to aid psychological recovery.

Be vigilant for post-traumatic stress reactions.

Most people experience at least one potentially traumatic event (PTE) during their life. Many will develop only transient distress and not a psychological illness. Even the most inherently horrific event does not invariably lead to the development of a psychological disorder while an individual with sufficient vulnerabilit may develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after what appears be an event of low magnitude. The diagnosis of PTSD differs fro most psychiatric disorders as it includes an aetiological factor, the traumatic event, as a core criterion. The DSM 5 core symptoms of PTSD are grouped into four key symptom clusters: re-experiencing, avoidance, negative cognitions and mood, and arousal. Symptoms must be present for at least one month and cause functional impairment. PTSD patients can avoid engaging in treatment and assertive follow-up may be necessary.

Identifying patients with complex PTSD.

While the common perception of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is of an individual suffering from a single traumatic event, clinicians need to be aware of those people who have been exposed to multiple potentially traumatic events. Type 2 or complex trauma results from multiple or repeated traumatic events occurring over extended periods. Complex trauma is often associated with other adversity and stressors such as neglect, loss or deprivation. For many individuals these traumas occur at a developmentally vulnerable time with the perpetrator often in a caregiving role; thus the trauma incorporates a betrayal of trust. Disclosure can be a problem particularly with complex trauma such as sexual abuse or domestic violence, and is often incremental as trust with the clinician is formed. Patients who have experienced complex trauma should be assessed for the core symptoms of PTSD. In addition, patients should be assessed for disturbances in the three domains of emotional dysregulation, negative self-concept and interpersonal disturbances.

Recognition of the neurobiological insults imposed by complex trauma and the implications for psychotherapeutic interventions.

Considerable research has been conducted on particular approaches to the psychotherapy of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, the evidence indicates that modalities tested in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are far from 100% applicable and effective and the RCT model itself is inadequate for evaluating treatments of conditions with complex presentations and frequently multiple comorbidities. Evidence at levels 2 and 3 cannot be ignored. Expert-led interventions consistent with the emerging understanding of affective neuroscience are needed and not the unthinking application of a dominant therapeutic paradigm with evidence for PTSD but not complex PTSD. The over-optimistic claims for the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and misrepresentation of other approaches do not best serve a group of patients greatly in need of help; excluding individuals with such disorders as untreatable or treatment-resistant when viable alternatives exist is not acceptable.

Neglect of the complex: why psychotherapy for post-traumatic clinical presentations is often ineffective.

Evidence of efficacy in studies of post-traumatic conditions is largely derived from studies in which variables are kept to a minimum. Extrapolation of treatments from uncomplicated disorders to complex conditions may therefore be called evidence-based without being evidenced. Complex conditions with polysymptomatic presentations and extensive comorbidity are being denied proper evaluation, and patients most severely traumatised from the early stages of their development are not provided with rigorously evaluated psychotherapies because they are more difficult to study in the manner approved by research protocols. Such evidence as there is suggests that the simple extension of treatments for uncomplicated disorders is seriously inadequate. This has significant implications for health services responsible for the provision of the most efficacious treatments to those whose disorders arise from severe trauma, often very early in their life.

Increased Hospital-Based Physical Rehabilitation and Information Provision After Intensive Care Unit Discharge: The RECOVER Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Critical illness results in disability and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but the optimum timing and components of rehabilitation are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of increasing physical and nutritional rehabilitation plus information delivered during the post-intensive care unit (ICU) acute hospital stay by dedicated rehabilitation assistants on subsequent mobility, HRQOL, and prevalent disabilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A parallel group, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment at 2 hospitals in Edinburgh, Scotland, of 240 patients discharged from the ICU between December 1, 2010, and January 31, 2013, who required at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Analysis for the primary outcome and other 3-month outcomes was performed between June and August 2013; for the 6- and 12-month outcomes and the health economic evaluation, between March and April 2014. INTERVENTIONS: During the post-ICU hospital stay, both groups received physiotherapy and dietetic, occupational, and speech/language therapy, but patients in the intervention group received rehabilitation that typically increased the frequency of mobility and exercise therapies 2- to 3-fold, increased dietetic assessment and treatment, used individualized goal setting, and provided greater illness-specific information. Intervention group therapy was coordinated and delivered by a dedicated rehabilitation practitioner. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) (range 0-15) at 3 months; higher scores indicate greater mobility. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, psychological outcomes, self-reported symptoms, patient experience, and cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up (completed in February 2014). RESULTS: Median RMI at randomization was 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6) and at 3 months was 13 (IQR, 10-14) for the intervention and usual care groups (mean difference, -0.2 [95% CI, -1.3 to 0.9; P = .71]). The HRQOL scores were unchanged by the intervention (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, -0.1 [95% CI, -3.3 to 3.1; P = .96]; and in the Mental Component Summary score, 0.2 [95% CI, -3.4 to 3.8; P = .91]). No differences were found for self-reported symptoms of fatigue, pain, appetite, joint stiffness, or breathlessness. Levels of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress were similar, as were hand grip strength and the timed Up & Go test. No differences were found at the 6- or 12-month follow-up for any outcome measures. However, patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with physiotherapy, nutritional support, coordination of care, and information provision. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Post-ICU hospital-based rehabilitation, including increased physical and nutritional therapy plus information provision, did not improve physical recovery or HRQOL, but improved patient satisfaction with many aspects of recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN09412438.

Intensive care diaries to promote recovery for patients and families after critical illness: A Cochrane Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of an intensive care unit (ICU) diary versus no ICU diary on patients, and their caregivers or families, during the patient's recovery from admission to an ICU. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PILOT; Web of Science Conference Proceedings, clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials. REVIEW METHODS: Studies evaluated the effectiveness of patient diaries, when compared to no ICU diary, for patients or family members to promote recovery after admission to ICU were included. Outcome measures for describing recovery from ICU included the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptomatology, health-related quality of life and costs. We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently reviewed titles for inclusion, extracted data and undertook risk of bias according to pre-specified criteria. RESULTS: We identified three eligible studies; two describing ICU patients (N=358), and one describing relatives of ICU patients (N=30). No study adequately reported on risk of PTSD as described using a clinical interview, family or caregiver anxiety or depression, health-related quality of life or costs. Within a single study there was no clear evidence of a difference in risk for developing anxiety (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07-1.19) or depression (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.19) in participants who received ICU diaries, in comparison to those that did not receive a patient diary. Within a single study there was no evidence of difference in median post-traumatic stress symptomatology scores (diaries 24, SD 11.6; no diary 24, SD 11.6) and delusional ICU memory recall (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.28) between the patients recovering from ICU admission who received patient diaries, and those who did not. One study reported reduced post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members of patients recovering from admission to ICU who received patient diaries (median 19; range 14-28), in comparison to no diary (median 28; range 14-38). CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is minimal evidence from RCTs of the benefits or harms of patient diaries for patients and their caregivers or family members. A small study has described their potential to reduce post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members. However, there is currently inadequate evidence to support their effectiveness in improving psychological recovery after critical illness for patients and their family members.

Diaries for recovery from critical illness.

BACKGROUND: During intensive care unit (ICU) admission, patients experience extreme physical and psychological stressors, including the abnormal ICU environment. These experiences impact on a patient's recovery from critical illness and may result in both physical and psychological disorders. One strategy that has been developed and implemented by clinical staff to treat the psychological distress prevalent in ICU survivors is the use of patient diaries. These provide a background to the cause of the patient's ICU admission and an ongoing narrative outlining day-to-day activities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a diary versus no diary on patients, and their caregivers or families, during the patient's recovery from admission to an ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to January 2014), EBSCOhost CINAHL (1982 to January 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2014), PsycINFO (1950 to January 2014), Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) database (1971 to January 2014); Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Social Science and Humanities (1990 to January 2014); seven clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials. We applied no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or clinical controlled trials (CCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of patient diaries, when compared to no ICU diary, for patients or family members to promote recovery after admission to ICU. Outcome measures for describing recovery from ICU included the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptomatology, health-related quality of life and costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently reviewed titles for inclusion, extracted data and undertook risk of bias according to prespecified criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three eligible studies; two describing ICU patients (N = 358), and one describing relatives of ICU patients (N = 30). The study involving relatives of ICU patients was a substudy of family members from one of the ICU patient studies. There was a mixed risk of bias within the included studies. Blinding of participants to allocation was not possible and blinding of the outcome assessment was not adequately achieved or reported. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to very low. The patient diary intervention was not identical between studies. However, each provided a prospectively prepared, day-to-day description of the participants' ICU admission.No study adequately reported on risk of PTSD as described using a clinical interview, family or caregiver anxiety or depression, health-related quality of life or costs. Within a single study there was no clear evidence of a difference in risk for developing anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.19) or depression (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.19) in participants who received ICU diaries, in comparison to those that did not receive a patient diary. However, the results were imprecise and consistent with benefit in either group, or no difference. Within a single study there was no evidence of difference in median post-traumatic stress symptomatology scores (diaries 24, SD 11.6; no diary 24, SD 11.6) and delusional ICU memory recall (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.28) between the patients recovering from ICU admission who received patient diaries, and those who did not. One study reported reduced post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members of patients recovering from admission to ICU who received patient diaries (median 19; range 14 to 28), in comparison to no diary (median 28; range 14 to 38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is minimal evidence from RCTs of the benefits or harms of patient diaries for patients and their caregivers or family members. A small study has described their potential to reduce post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members. However, there is currently inadequate evidence to support their effectiveness in improving psychological recovery after critical illness for patients and their family members.

A rehabilitation intervention to promote physical recovery following intensive care: a detailed description of construct development, rationale and content together with proposed taxonomy to capture processes in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, but survival may be associated with a constellation of physical and psychological sequelae that can cause ongoing disability and reduced health-related quality of life. Limited evidence currently exists to guide the optimum structure, timing, and content of rehabilitation programmes. There is a need to both develop and evaluate interventions to support and expedite recovery during the post-ICU discharge period. This paper describes the construct development for a complex rehabilitation intervention intended to promote physical recovery following critical illness. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial (ISRCTN09412438; funder Chief Scientists Office, Scotland). METHODS: The intervention was developed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex healthcare interventions. We ensured representation from a wide variety of stakeholders including content experts from multiple specialties, methodologists, and patient representation. The intervention construct was initially based on literature review, local observational and audit work, qualitative studies with ICU survivors, and brainstorming activities. Iterative refinement was aided by the publication of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline (No. 83), publicly available patient stories (Healthtalkonline), a stakeholder event in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, and local piloting. Modelling and further work involved a feasibility trial and development of a novel generic rehabilitation assistant (GRA) role. Several rounds of external peer review during successive funding applications also contributed to development. RESULTS: The final construct for the complex intervention involved a dedicated GRA trained to pre-defined competencies across multiple rehabilitation domains (physiotherapy, dietetics, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy), with specific training in post-critical illness issues. The intervention was from ICU discharge to 3 months post-discharge, including inpatient and post-hospital discharge elements. Clear strategies to provide information to patients/families were included. A detailed taxonomy was developed to define and describe the processes undertaken, and capture them during the trial. The detailed process measure description, together with a range of patient, health service, and economic outcomes were successfully mapped on to the modified CONSORT recommendations for reporting non-pharmacologic trial interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The MRC complex intervention framework was an effective guide to developing a novel post-ICU rehabilitation intervention. Combining a clearly defined new healthcare role with a detailed taxonomy of process and activity enabled the intervention to be clearly described for the purpose of trial delivery and reporting. These data will be useful when interpreting the results of the randomised trial, will increase internal and external trial validity, and help others implement the intervention if the intervention proves clinically and cost effective.

The use of diaries in psychological recovery from intensive care.

Intensive care patients frequently experience memory loss, nightmares, and delusional memories and some may develop symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. The use of diaries is emerging as a putative tool to 'fill the memory gaps' and promote psychological recovery. In this review, we critically analyze the available literature regarding the use and impact of diaries for intensive care patients specifically to examine the impact of diaries on intensive care patients' recovery. Diversity of practice in regard to the structure, content, and process elements of diaries for intensive care patients exists and emphasizes the lack of an underpinning psychological conceptualization. The use of diaries as an intervention to aid psychological recovery in intensive care patients has been examined in 11 studies, including two randomized controlled trials. Inconsistencies exist in sample characteristics, study outcomes, study methods, and the diary intervention itself, limiting the amount of comparison that is possible between studies. Measurement of the impact of the diary intervention on patient outcomes has been limited in both scope and time frame. Furthermore, an underpinning conceptualization or rationale for diaries as an intervention has not been articulated or tested. Given these significant limitations, although findings tend to be positive, implementation as routine clinical practice should not occur until a body of evidence is developed to inform methodological considerations and confirm proposed benefits.

Competing interests declared: early interventions and long-term psychological outcomes.

Survivors of motor vehicle accidents and/or survivors of critical care unit admission are at increased risk of developing post-traumatic reactions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Examining the possible risk factors for the development of these disorders must consider pre-traumatic, peri-traumatic and post-traumatic factors and must do so across domains relating to the trauma, the person and their circumstances. The present study has found propofol administration in the first 72 hours post motor vehicle accident to confer a higher risk for full or partial post-traumatic stress disorder at 6 months. This study highlights concerns that treatment needed acutely post injury may impact adversely on long-term outcome, albeit in a different domain-the psychological.

A randomised controlled trial evaluating a rehabilitation complex intervention for patients following intensive care discharge: the RECOVER study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who survive an intensive care unit admission frequently suffer physical and psychological morbidity for many months after discharge. Current rehabilitation pathways are often fragmented and little is known about the optimum method of promoting recovery. Many patients suffer reduced quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The authors plan a multicentre randomised parallel group complex intervention trial with concealment of group allocation from outcome assessors. Patients who required more than 48 h of mechanical ventilation and are deemed fit for intensive care unit discharge will be eligible. Patients with primary neurological diagnoses will be excluded. Participants will be randomised into one of the two groups: the intervention group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the NHS service with additional treatment by a specifically trained generic rehabilitation assistant during ward stay and via telephone contact after hospital discharge and the control group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the current NHS service. The intervention group will also receive additional information about their critical illness and access to a critical care physician. The total duration of the intervention will be from randomisation to 3 months postrandomisation. The total duration of follow-up will be 12 months from randomisation for both groups. The primary outcome will be the Rivermead Mobility Index at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will include measures of physical and psychological morbidity and function, quality of life and survival over a 12-month period. A health economic evaluation will also be undertaken. Groups will be compared in relation to primary and secondary outcomes; quantitative analyses will be supplemented by focus groups with patients, carers and healthcare workers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Consent will be obtained from patients and relatives according to patient capacity. Data will be analysed according to a predefined analysis plan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN09412438 and funded by the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland.

Emotional outcome after intensive care: literature review.

AIM: This paper is a report of a literature review to identify (a) the prevalence of emotional and psychological problems after intensive care, (b) associated factors and (c) interventions that might improve this aspect of recovery. BACKGROUND: Being a patient in intensive care has been linked to both short- and long-term emotional and psychological consequences. DATA SOURCES: The literature search was conducted during 2006. Relevant journals and databases were searched, i.e. Medline and CINAHL, between the years 1995 and 2006. REVIEW METHODS: The search terms were 'anxiety', 'depression', posttraumatic stress', 'posttraumatic stress disorder' and 'intensive care'. RESULTS: Fifteen papers were reviewed representing research studies of anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress, and seven that represented intensive care follow-up clinics and patient diaries. Being in intensive care can result in significant emotional and psychological problems for a number of patients. For the majority of patients, symptoms of distress will decrease over time but for a number these will endure for some years. Current evidence indicates that emotional problems after intensive care are related to both subjective and objective indicators of a patient's intensive care experience. Evidence suggests some benefit in an early rehabilitation programme, daily sedation withdrawal and the use of patient diaries. However, additional research is required to support such findings. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of the consequences of intensive care is improving. Psychological care for intensive care patients has lagged behind care for physical problems. We now need to focus on developing and evaluating appropriate interventions to improve psychological outcome in this patient group.

Psychological consequences of critical illness: aftercare or an afterthought?

As the physical care of individuals with critical illness has improved greater numbers have survived. However, until recently the psychological response to such critical illness has received comparatively little attention.