Factors affecting hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccine booster doses in Canada: a cross-national survey.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 transmission, emergence of variants of concern, and weakened immunity have led to recommended vaccine booster doses for COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy challenges broad immunization coverage. We deployed a cross-national survey to investigate knowledge, beliefs, and behaviours toward continued COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We administered a national, cross-sectional online survey among adults in Canada between March 16 and March 26, 2022. We utilized descriptive statistics to summarize our sample, and tested for demographic differences, perceptions of vaccine effectiveness, recommended doses, and trust in decisions, using the Rao-Scott correction for weighted chi-squared tests. Multivariable logistic regression was adjusted for relevant covariates to identify sociodemographic factors and beliefs associated with vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: We collected 2202 completed questionnaires. Lower education status (high school: odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29, 2.81) and having children (OR 1.89, CI 1.39, 2.57) were associated with increased odds of experiencing hesitancy toward a booster dose, while higher income ($100,000-$149,999: OR 0.60, CI 0.39, 0.91; $150,000 or more: OR 0.49, CI 0.29, 0.82) was associated with decreased odds. Disbelief in vaccine effectiveness (against infection: OR 3.69, CI 1.98, 6.90; serious illness: OR 3.15, CI 1.69, 5.86), disagreeing with government decision-making (somewhat disagree: OR 2.70, CI 1.38, 5.29; strongly disagree: OR 4.62, CI 2.20, 9.7), and beliefs in over-vaccinating (OR 2.07, CI 1.53, 2.80) were found associated with booster dose hesitancy. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may develop or increase regarding subsequent vaccines. Our findings indicate factors to consider when targeting vaccine-hesitant populations.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La transmission de la COVID-19, l'émergence de variants préoccupants et l'affaiblissement de l'immunité ont conduit à recommander des doses de rappel de vaccin contre la COVID-19. L'hésitation à la vaccination remet en question une large couverture vaccinale. Nous avons déployé une enquête transnationale pour étudier les connaissances, les croyances et les comportements en faveur de la poursuite de la vaccination contre la COVID-19. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une enquête nationale transversale en ligne auprès d'adultes au Canada, entre le 16 et le 26 mars 2022. Nous avons utilisé des statistiques descriptives pour résumer notre échantillon et testé les différences démographiques, les perceptions de l'efficacité des vaccins, les doses recommandées et la confiance dans les décisions, en utilisant la correction de Rao-Scott pour les tests du chi carré pondérés. La régression logistique multivariée a été ajustée pour les covariables pertinentes afin d'identifier les facteurs sociodémographiques et les croyances associés à l'hésitation à la vaccination. RéSULTATS: Nous avons collecté 2 202 questionnaires remplis. Un faible niveau d'éducation (lycée : rapport de cotes (OR) 1,90, intervalle de confiance (IC) à 95% 1,29, 2,81) et le fait d'avoir des enfants (OR 1,89, IC 1,39, 2,57) étaient associés à une probabilité accrue d'éprouver une hésitation à l'égard d'une dose de rappel, tandis qu'un revenu plus élevé (100 000 $­149 999 $ : OR 0,60, IC 0,39, 0,91; 150 000 $ ou plus : OR 0,49, IC 0,29, 0,82) était associé à une diminution des probabilités. Incrédulité dans l'efficacité du vaccin (contre l'infection : OR 3,69, IC 1,98, 6,90; maladie grave : OR 3,15, IC 1,69, 5,86), en désaccord avec la prise de décision du gouvernement (plutôt en désaccord : OR 2,70, IC 1,38, 5,29; fortement en désaccord : OR 4,62, IC 2,20, 9,7) et la croyance dans le sur-vaccination (OR 2,07, IC 1,53, 2,80) ont été associées à une hésitation à recevoir une dose de rappel. CONCLUSION: Une hésitation à l'égard du vaccin contre la COVID-19 peut se développer ou augmenter à l'égard des vaccins ultérieurs. Nos résultats indiquent des facteurs à prendre en compte lors du ciblage des populations hésitantes à la vaccination.

Perioperative Factors Associated With Postoperative Delirium in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common and serious complication after surgery. Various predisposing factors are associated with POD, but their magnitude and importance using an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis have not been assessed. Objective: To identify perioperative factors associated with POD and assess their relative prognostic value among adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception to May 2020. Study Selection: Studies were included that (1) enrolled adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, (2) assessed perioperative risk factors for POD, and (3) measured the incidence of delirium (measured using a validated approach). Data were analyzed in 2020. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual patient data were pooled from 21 studies and 1-stage meta-analysis was performed using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression after a multivariable imputation via chained equations model to impute missing data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The end point of interest was POD diagnosed up to 10 days after a procedure. A wide range of perioperative risk factors was considered as potentially associated with POD. Results: A total of 192 studies met the eligibility criteria, and IPD were acquired from 21 studies that enrolled 8382 patients. Almost 1 in 5 patients developed POD (18%), and an increased risk of POD was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 4 (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.42-4.14), older age (OR for 65-85 years, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.16-3.29; OR for >85 years, 6.24; 95% CI, 4.65-8.37), low body mass index (OR for body mass index <18.5, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.64-3.09), history of delirium (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.69-5.66), preoperative cognitive impairment (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.94-5.43), and preoperative C-reactive protein levels (OR for 5-10 mg/dL, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.59-3.50; OR for >10 mg/dL, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.46-5.17). Completing a college degree or higher was associated with a decreased likelihood of developing POD (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data, several important factors associated with POD were found that may help identify patients at high risk and may have utility in clinical practice to inform patients and caregivers about the expected risk of developing delirium after surgery. Future studies should explore strategies to reduce delirium after surgery.

Clinical practice guideline recommendations for diagnosis and management of anxiety and depression in hospitalized adults with delirium: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Delirium commonly occurs in hospitalized adults. Psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can co-occur with delirium, and can be recognized and managed by clinicians using recommendations found in methodological guiding statements called Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). The specific aims of this review were to: [1] synthesize CPG recommendations for the diagnosis and management of anxiety, depression, and PTSD in adults with delirium in acute care; and [2] identify recent published literature in addition to those identified and reported in a 2017 review on delirium CPG recommendations and quality. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and 21 sites on the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies listed in the Health Grey Matters Lite tool were searched from inception to February 12, 2021. Selected CPGs focused on delirium in acute care, were endorsed by an international scientific society or governmental organization, and contained at least one recommendation for the diagnosis or management of delirium. Two reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate and independently assessed CPG quality using the AGREE-II tool. Narrative synthesis of CPG recommendations was conducted. RESULTS: Title and abstract screening was completed on 7611 records. Full-text review was performed on 197 CPGs. The final review included 27 CPGs of which 7 (26%) provided recommendations for anxiety (4/7, 57%), depression (5/7, 71%), and PTSD (1/7, 14%) in delirium. Twenty CPGs provided recommendations for delirium only (e.g., assess patient regularly, avoid use of benzodiazepines). Recommendations for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders with delirium included using evidence-based diagnostic criteria and standardized screening tools. Recommendations for the management of psychiatric disorders with delirium included pharmacological (e.g., anxiolytics, antidepressants) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., promoting patient orientation using clocks). Guideline quality varied: the lowest was Applicability (mean = 36%); the highest Clarity of Presentation (mean = 76%). CONCLUSIONS: There are few available evidence-based CPGs to facilitate appropriate diagnosis and management of anxiety, depression, and PTSD in patients with delirium in acute care. Future guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based recommendations on the diagnosis and management of these psychiatric disorders in delirium. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42021237056).

Preliminary clinical testing to inform development of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool for Families (CPOT-Fam).

Introduction: Many patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) cannot communicate. For these patients, family caregivers (family members/close friends) could assist in pain assessment. We previously adapted the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) for family caregiver use (CPOT-Fam). In this study, we conducted preliminary clinical evaluation of the CPOT-Fam to inform further tool development. Methods: For preliminary testing, we collected (1) pain assessments of patients in the ICU from family caregivers (CPOT-Fam) and nurses (CPOT) and determined the degree of agreement (kappa coefficient, κ) and (2) collected openended feedback on the CPOT-Fam from family caregivers. For refinement, we used preliminary testing data to refine the CPOT-Fam with a multidisciplinary working group. Results: We assessed agreement between family caregiver and nurse pain scores for 29 patients. Binary agreement (κ) between CPOT-Fam and CPOT item scores (scores ≥2 considered indicative of significant pain) was fair, κ = 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.69). Agreement was highest for the CPOT-Fam items ventilator compliance/vocalization (weighted κ = 0.48, 95% CI 0.15-0.80) and lowest for muscle tension (weighted κ = 0.10, 95% [CI] -0.17 to 0.20). Most participants (n = 19; 69.0%) reported a very positive experience using the CPOT-Fam, describing it as "good" and "easy-to-use/clear/straightforward." We iteratively refined the CPOT-Fam over five cycles using the data collected until no further revisions were suggested. Conclusion: Our preliminary clinical testing suggests that family involvement in pain assessment in the ICU is well perceived. The CPOT-Fam has been further refined and is now ready for clinical pilot testing to determine its feasibility and acceptability.

Introduction: De nombreux patients de l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ne peuvent pas communiquer. Pour cespatients, les aidants familiaux (membres de la famille/amis proches) pourraient aider à l'évaluation de la douleur. Nous avons précédemment adapté l'outil d'observation de la douleur en soins intensifs (CPOT) pour qu'il puisse être utilisé par des aidants familiaux (CPOTFam). Dans cette étude, nous avons mené une évaluation clinique préliminaire du CPOT-Fam afin d'éclairer davantage le développement de l'outil.Méthodes: Pour les tests préliminaires, nous avons recueilli (1) des évaluations de la douleur des patients en unité de soins intensifs auprès d'aidants familiaux (CPOT-Fam) et d'infirmières (CPOT) et déterminé le degré de concordance (coefficient de Kappa, κ) et (2) des commentaires ouverts sur le CPOT-Fam auprès d'aidants familiaux. Nous avons ensuite utilisé les données des tests préliminaires pour affiner le CPOT-Fam avec un groupe de travail multidisciplinaire.Résultats: Nous avons évalué la concordance entre les scores obtenus par des aidants familiaux et des infirmières pour les énoncés portant sur la douleur pour 29 patients. La concordance binaire (κ) entre les scores obtenus pour les énoncés du CPOT-Fam et du CPOT (un score ≥ 2 était considéré comme un indicateur de douleur importante) était passable, κ = 0,43 (intervalle de confiance à 95 % [IC] 0,18-0,69). La concordance était la plus élevée pour les énoncés du CPOT-Fam portant sur l'observance de la ventilation/vocalisation (κ pondéré = 0,48, IC à 95 % 0,15-0,80) et la plus faible pour la tension musculaire (κ pondéré = 0,10, 95% [IC] − 0,17 à 0,20). La plupart des participants (n = 19; 69,0 %) ont fait état d'une expérience très positive de l'utilisation du CPOT-Fam, le décrivant comme « bon ¼ et « facile à utiliser/clair/simple. ¼ Nous avons affiné le CPOT-Fam de manière itérative sur cinq cycles en utilisant les données recueillies jusqu'à ce qu'aucune autre révision ne soit suggérée.Conclusion: Nos tests cliniques préliminaires indiquent que la participation de la famille à l'évaluation de la douleur dans l'unité de soins intensifs est bien perçue. Le CPOT-Fam a été affiné et est maintenant prêt pour le test clinique pilote afin de déterminer sa faisabilité et son acceptabilité.

A North Star Vision: Results from a Deliberative Dialogue to Identify Policy Strategies to Improve Value in Healthcare.

We hosted a deliberative dialogue with citizens (n = 3), policy researchers (n = 3), government decision makers (n = 3) and health system leaders (n = 3) to identify evidence-informed policy options to improve the value of Canadian healthcare. The analysis resulted in three themes: (1) the need for a vision to guide reforms, (2) community-based care and (3) community-engaged care. Results suggest the need for a new paradigm: community-focused health systems. Such a paradigm could serve as a North Star guiding healthcare transformation, improving value by aligning citizen and healthcare system goals, prioritizing spending on services that address the social determinants of health and improving quality and equity.

Unplanned Extubations Requiring Reintubation in Pediatric Critical Care: An Epidemiological Study.

OBJECTIVES: Unplanned extubations are an infrequent but life-threatening adverse event in pediatric critical care. Due to the rarity of these events, previous studies have been small, limiting the generalizability of findings and the ability to detect associations. Our objectives were to describe unplanned extubations and explore predictors of unplanned extubation requiring reintubation in PICUs. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study and multilevel regression model. SETTING: PICUs participating in Virtual Pediatric Systems (LLC). PATIENTS: Patients (≤ 18 yr) who had an unplanned extubation in PICU (2012-2020). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We developed and trained a multilevel least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression model in the 2012-2016 sample that accounted for between-PICU variations as a random effect to predict reintubation after unplanned extubation. The remaining sample (2017-2020) was used to externally validate the model. Predictors included age, weight, sex, primary diagnosis, admission type, and readmission status. Model calibration and discriminatory performance were evaluated using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit (HL-GOF) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), respectively. Of the 5,703 patients included, 1,661 (29.1%) required reintubation. Variables associated with increased risk of reintubation were age (< 2 yr; odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9) and diagnosis (respiratory; OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). Scheduled admission was associated with decreased risk of reintubation (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9). With LASSO (lambda = 0.011), remaining variables were age, weight, diagnosis, and scheduled admission. The predictors resulted in AUROC of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.57-0.61); HL-GOF showed the model was well calibrated (p = 0.88). The model performed similarly in external validation (AUROC, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.56-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Predictors associated with increased risk of reintubation included age and respiratory primary diagnosis. Including clinical factors (e.g., oxygen and ventilatory requirements at the time of unplanned extubation) in the model may increase predictive ability.

Interventions to improve well-being among children and youth aged 6-17 years during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is an example of a global infectious disease outbreak that poses a threat to the well-being of children and youth (e.g., physical infection, psychological impacts). The consequences of challenges faced during COVID-19 may be longstanding and newly developed interventions are being deployed. We present a narrative synthesis of available evidence from the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic on the feasibility, accessibility, and effects of interventions to improve well-being among children and youth to inform the development and refinement of interventions relevant to post-pandemic recovery. METHODS: Six databases were searched from inception to August 2022. A total of 5484 records were screened, 39 were reviewed in full text, and 19 studies were included. The definition of well-being and the five domains of well-being as defined by the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health and the World Health Organization in collaboration with the United Nations H6 + Technical Working Group on Adolescent Health and Well-Being were used. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (74% randomized controlled trials) from 10 countries were identified, involving a total of 7492 children and youth (age range: 8.2-17.2 years; 27.8-75.2% males) and 954 parents that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to March 2021). Nearly all interventions (n = 18, 95%) targeted health and nutrition, followed by connectedness (n = 6, 32%), while fewer studies targeted agency and resilience (n = 5, 23%), learning and competence (n = 2, 11%), or safety and support (n = 1, 3%). Five interventions (26%) were self-guided while 13 interventions (68%) were guided synchronous by a trained professional, all of which targeted physical and mental health subdomains within health and nutrition; one intervention (5%) was unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Studies deploying synchronous interventions most often reported improved well-being among children and youth largely in the domain of health and nutrition, specifically physical and mental health. Targeted approaches will be crucial to reach sub-groups of children and youth who are most at risk of negative well-being outcomes. Further research is needed to determine how interventions that best supported children and youth early in the pandemic are different from interventions that are required now as we enter into the post-pandemic phase.

Development and preclinical testing of the critical care pain observation tool for family caregiver use (CPOT-Fam).

Background and Aims: Pain assessment in noncommunicative intensive care unit (ICU) patients is challenging. For these patients, family caregivers (i.e., family members, friends) may be able to assist in pain assessment by identifying individualistic signs of pain due to their intimate patient knowledge. This study adapted the critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) to facilitate pain assessment in adult ICU patients by family caregivers. Methods: This study was conducted through three distinct phases: (1)CPOT adaptation for family caregiver use (to create the CPOT-Fam): A working group met monthly to adapt the CPOT and develop educational material and sample cases for practice scoring until consensus was reached.(2)CPOT-Fam preclinical testing: Family caregiver study participants viewed educational materials and scored four randomly selected sample cases using the CPOT-Fam. Scores were compared to reference scores to assess agreement and identify CPOT-Fam sections requiring revision. Open-ended feedback on the CPOT-Fam was collected.(3)CPOT-Fam revision: the CPOT-Fam was revised by the working group considering score agreement and feedback received from study participants. Results: Of the n = 30 participants, n = 14 (47.0%) had experience with an ICU patient. Agreement between CPOT-Fam participant scores and reference scores were highest for the vocalization dimension (Is the patient making any sounds?; Intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC = 1.0) and lowest for the body movements dimension (What are the patient's body movements like?; ICC = 0.85. Participants indicated they found the CPOT-Fam to be "informative" and "easy-to-use" but "not graphic enough"; participants also indicated that descriptors like "lack of breath" and "struggling to move" are helpful with identifying individualistic behaviors of pain exhibited by their loved ones. Conclusion: The CPOT-Fam shows ease of use and may be of value in involving family caregivers in ICU care. Clinical pilot testing is needed to determine feasibility and acceptability and identify further areas for refinement.

Psychiatric Disorder Incidence Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 15-39 With Cancer: Population-Based Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors face physical and psychological sequelae related to having cancer decades after treatment completion. It is unclear if AYA cancer survivors are at increased risk for late psychiatric disorders. METHODS: We used the Alberta AYA Cancer Survivor Study that includes 5-year survivors of cancer diagnosed at age 15-39 years during 1991 to 2013. The primary outcome was incidence of psychiatric disorder (composite outcome) including anxiety, depressive, trauma- and stressor-related, psychotic, and substance use disorders that were identified using coding algorithms for administrative health databases. A validated coding algorithm identified people who experienced a suicide attempt or event of self-harm. Secondary outcomes were incidences of diagnoses by type of psychiatric disorder. RESULTS: Among 12 116 AYA 5-year cancer survivors (n = 4634 [38%] males; n = 7482 [62%] females), 7426 (61%; n = 2406 [32%] males; n = 5020 [68%] females) were diagnosed with at least 1 of 5 psychiatric disorders occurring at least 3 years after cancer diagnosis. Survivors of all cancer types were most often diagnosed with anxiety (males: 39.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 37.6% to 40.4%; females: 54.5%, 95% CI = 53.3% to 55.6%), depressive (males: 32.7%, 95% CI = 31.3% to 34.0%; females: 47.0%, 95% CI = 45.8% to 48.1%), and trauma- and stressor-related disorders (males: 13.5%, 95% CI =12.5% to 14.5%; females: 22.5%, 95% CI = 21.6% to 23.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety, depressive, and trauma- and stressor-related disorders are common among 5-year survivors of AYA cancer. Primary, secondary, or tertiary preventive strategies for AYAs diagnosed with cancer, particularly at an early age, are needed to mitigate risk of potentially severe outcomes because of psychiatric disorders.

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.

Perspectives from designated family caregivers of critically ill adult patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Family visitation in intensive care units (ICU) has been impacted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) pandemic. While studies report on perceptions of families completely restricted from ICUs, little is known about the burden experienced by designated family caregivers allowed to visit their critically ill loved one. This study sought the perspectives of family caregivers of critically ill patients on the impact of one-person designated visitor policies mandated in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Throughout the study period a restricted visitation policy was mandated capturing the first (April 2020) and second (December 2020) waves of the pandemic that allowed one designated family caregiver (i.e., spouses or adult children) per patient to visit the ICU. Designated family caregivers of critically ill patients admitted to ICU September 2020 to November 2020 took part in individual 60-minute, semi-structured interviews at 6-months after discharge from the index ICU admission. Themes from family interviews were summarized with representative quotations. RESULTS: Key themes identified following thematic analysis from six participants included: one visitor rule, patient advocate role, information needs, emotional distress, strategies for coping with challenges, practicing empathy, and appreciation of growth. CONCLUSION: Designated family caregivers of critically ill patients admitted to ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic perceived a complex and highly stressful experience. Support from ICU family liaisons and psychologists may help ameliorate the impact.

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.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. DESIGN: Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. PARTICIPANTS: Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist. SETTING: International consensus. INTERVENTION: Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline. RESULTS: From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews. CONCLUSIONS: PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

Study protocol: development and pilot testing of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool for families (CPOT-Fam).

BACKGROUND: Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) often have limited ability to communicate making it more difficult to identify and effectively treat their pain. Family caregivers or close friends of critically ill patients may be able to identify signs of pain before the clinical care team and could potentially assist in routine pain assessments. This study will adapt the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) for use by family members to create the CPOT-Fam and compare family CPOT-Fam assessments with nurse-provided CPOT assessments for a given patient. METHODS: This study will be executed in two phases: 1) Development of the CPOT-Fam - A working group of patient partners, ICU clinicians, and researchers will adapt the CPOT for use by family caregivers (creating the CPOT-Fam) and produce an accompanying educational module to deliver information on pain and how to use the tool. The CPOT-Fam will undergo preclinical testing with participants (i.e., members of the public and family caregivers of critically ill adults), who will complete the educational module and provide CPOT-Fam scores on sample cases. Feedback on the CPOT-Fam will be collected. 2) Pilot testing the CPOT - Fam family caregivers of critically ill adults will complete the educational module and provide information on the following: (1) demographics, (2) anxiety, (3) caregiving self-efficacy, and (4) satisfaction with care in the ICU. Family caregivers will then provide a proxy assessment of their critically ill loved one's pain through the CPOT-Fam and also provide a subjective (i.e., questionnaire-based including open-ended responses) account of their loved one's pain status. A comparison (i.e., agreement) will be made between family caregiver provided CPOT-Fam scores and ICU nurse-provided CPOT scores (collected from the provincial health information system), calculated independently and blinded to one another. Feasibility and acceptability of the CPOT-Fam will be determined. DISCUSSION: The results of this work will produce a family caregiver CPOT (i.e., CPOT-Fam), determine feasibility and acceptability of the CPOT-Fam, and compare pain assessments conducted by family caregivers and ICU nurses. The results will inform whether a larger study to determine a role for family caregivers in ICU pain assessment using the CPOT-Fam is warranted.

Factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare providers in 23 countries.

BACKGROUND: Several early COVID-19 studies aimed to assess the potential acceptance of a vaccine among healthcare providers, but relatively few studies of this population have been published since the vaccines became widely available. Vaccine safety, speed of development, and low perceived disease risk were commonly cited as factors for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among this group. PURPOSE AND METHODS: In a secondary analysis based on a cross-sectional, structured survey, the authors aimed to assess the associations between self-reported vaccine hesitancy and a number of sociodemographic and COVID-19 vaccine perception factors using data from 3,295 healthcare providers (physicians, nurses, community health workers, other healthcare providers) in 23 countries. FINDINGS: 494 (15.0%) of the participants reported vaccine hesitancy, of whom 132 (4.0%) would outright refuse to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Physicians were the least hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy was more likely to occur among those with less than the median income and, to a lesser degree, younger age. Safety and risk concerns and lack of trust that vaccines would be equitably distributed were strongly associated with hesitancy, less so were concerns about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. INTERPRETATION: Findings suggest a need to address safety and risk concerns through tailored messaging, training, and/or incentive approaches among healthcare providers, as well as the need for international and national vaccination efforts to ensure equitable distribution.

Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: Fluctuating course of delirium and complexities of ICU care mean delirium symptoms are hard to identify or commonly confused with other disorders. Delirium is difficult to diagnose, and clinicians and researchers may combine assessments from multiple tools. We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of different combinations of delirium assessments performed in each enrolled patient. METHODS: Data were obtained from a previously conducted cross-sectional study. Eligible adult patients who remained admitted to ICU for >24 hours with at least one family member present were consecutively enrolled as patient-family dyads. Clinical delirium assessments (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist [ICSDC] and Confusion Assessment Method-ICU [CAM-ICU]) were completed twice daily by bedside nurse or trained research assistant, respectively. Family delirium assessments (Family Confusion Assessment Method and Sour Seven) were completed once daily by family members. We pooled all delirium assessment tools in a single two-class latent model and pairwise (i.e., combined, clinical or family assessments) Bayesian analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-three patient-family dyads were included. Among clinical delirium assessments, the ICDSC had lower sensitivity (0.72; 95% Bayesian Credible [BC] interval 0.54-0.92) and higher specificity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.82-0.97) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and CAM-ICU had higher sensitivity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.70-1.00) and higher specificity (0.94; 95%BC, 0.80-1.00). Among family delirium assessments, the Family Confusion Assessment Method had higher sensitivity (0.83; 95%BC, 0.71-0.92) and higher specificity (0.93; 95%BC, 0.84-0.98) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and the Sour Seven had higher specificity (0.85; 95%BC, 0.67-0.99) but lower sensitivity (0.64; 95%BC 0.47-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Results from delirium assessment tools are often combined owing to imperfect reference standards for delirium measurement. Pairwise Bayesian analyses that explicitly accounted for each tool's (performed within same patient) prior sensitivity and specificity indicate that two combined clinical or two combined family delirium assessment tools have fair diagnostic accuracy.

Psychiatric Outcomes in ICU Patients With Family Visitation: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lack of family visitation in the ICU can have long-term consequences on patients in the ICU after discharge. The effect of family visitation on the incidence of patient psychiatric disorders is unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association between family visitation in the ICU and incidence of psychiatric outcomes in patients in the ICU 1 year after hospital discharge? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study assessed a population-based retrospective cohort of adult patients admitted to the ICU from January 1, 2014, through May 30, 2017, surviving to hospital discharge with ICU length of stay of ≥ 3 days. To be eligible, patients needed to have minimum of 5 years of administrative data before ICU admission and a minimum of 1 year of follow-up data after hospital discharge. An internally validated algorithm that interpreted natural language in health records determined patients with or without in-person family (ie, relatives, friends) visitation during ICU stay. The primary outcome was risk of an incidence of psychiatric disorder (composite outcome), including anxiety, depressive, trauma- and stressor-related, psychotic, and substance use disorders, identified using coding algorithms for administrative databases. Propensity scores were used in inverse probability weighted logistic regression models, and average treatment effects were converted to risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes were incidences of diagnoses by type of psychiatric disorder. RESULTS: We included 14,344 patients with (96% [n = 13,771]) and without (4.0% [n = 573]) in-person family visitation who survived hospital discharge. More than one-third of patients received a diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder within 1 year after discharge (34.9%; 95% CI, 34.1%-35.6%). Patients most often received diagnoses of anxiety disorders (17.5%; 95% CI, 16.9%-18.1%) and depressive disorders (17.2%; 95% CI, 16.6%-17.9%). After inverse probability weighting of 13,731 patients, in-person family visitation was associated with a lower risk of received a diagnosis of any incident psychiatric disorder within 1 year after discharge (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92). INTERPRETATION: ICU family visitation is associated with a decreased risk of psychiatric disorders in critically ill patients up to 1 year after hospital discharge.

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 ).

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.