Acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway for use in critically ill adults with hypoxaemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hypoxaemic respiratory failure (HRF) affects nearly 15% of critically ill adults admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). An evidence-based, stakeholder-informed multidisciplinary care pathway (Venting Wisely) was created to standardise the diagnosis and management of patients with HRF and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Successful adherence to the pathway requires a coordinated team-based approach by the clinician team. The overall aim of this study is to describe the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway among critical care clinicians. Specifically, this will allow us to (1) better understand the user's experience with the intervention and (2) determine if the intervention was delivered as intended. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This qualitative study will conduct focus groups with nurse practitioners, physicians, registered nurses and registered respiratory therapists from 17 Alberta ICUs. We will use template analysis to describe the acceptability of a multicomponent care pathway according to seven constructs of acceptability: (1) affective attitude;,(2) burden, (3) ethicality, (4) intervention coherence, (5) opportunity costs, (6) perceived effectiveness and (7) self-efficacy. This study will contribute to a better understanding of the acceptability of the Venting Wisely pathway. Identification of areas of poor acceptability will be used to refine the pathway and implementation strategies as ways to improve adherence to the pathway and promote its sustainability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a scientific conference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04744298.

ICU Care Team's Perception of Clinical Research in the ICU: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: Adequate recruitment is essential for successful clinical research. ICU nurses play a crucial role in identifying eligible patients, introducing research teams, facilitating informed consent, and caring for enrolled patients. However, a larger group of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals (the ICU care team) is equally important in promoting clinical research participation.To describe the ICU care team's experiences in ongoing clinical research, identifying perceived barriers and enablers to their participation, and apply a behavior framework to enhance research engagement. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Four adult ICUs and one PICU between June 2021 and March 2023. SUBJECTS: We recruited nurses, physicians, nurse practitioners, allied health professionals, and unit clerks. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: We developed and validated a cross-sectional survey based on the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model. This survey included: 1) demographic questions (n = 7); 2) research experience questions (n = 6), 3) capability questions (n = 8); 4) opportunity questions (n = 11); 5) and motivation questions (n = 13).A total of 172 ICU care team members completed the survey. Results showed differences in capabilities, opportunities, and motivations among ICU care team members. For example, fellow/attending physicians and nurse practitioners reported higher confidence in discussing research with patients/families, while registered nurses and allied health professionals expressed less confidence. CONCLUSIONS: ICU care team members face multiple barriers that impact their involvement with the conduct of ICU research. To effectively engage healthcare professionals in this process, it is essential to address their capabilities (research knowledge and skills to communicate research with patients/families), create opportunities (collaboration/communication with research team, discuss research during multidisciplinary rounds), and motivate them (recognize their help and share the results of the research being conducted at their site) to improve ICU care team engagement in the conduct of ICU research.

Patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU: A mixed-methods study of patient and family perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to create a definition of patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding during critical illness as an outcome for a randomized trial. DESIGN: This was a sequential mixed-methods qualitative-dominant multi-center study with an instrument-building aim. In semi-structured individual interviews or focus groups we elicited views from survivors of critical illness and family members of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) regarding which features indicate important gastrointestinal bleeding. Quantitative demographic characteristics were collected. We analyzed qualitative data using inductive content analysis to develop a definition for patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding. SETTING: Canada and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 51 ICU survivors and family members of ICU patients. RESULTS: Participants considered gastrointestinal bleeding to be important if it resulted in death, disability, or prolonged hospitalization. The following also signaled patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding: blood transfusion, vasopressors, endoscopy, CT-angiography, or surgery. Whether an intervention evinced concern depended on its effectiveness, side-effects, invasiveness and accessibility; contextual influences included participant familiarity and knowledge of interventions and trust in the clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of critical illness and family members described patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding differently than current definitions of clinically-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

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.

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.

What counts as patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU? A mixed-methods study protocol of patient and family perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding is conventionally defined as bleeding accompanied by haemodynamic changes, requiring red blood cell transfusions or other invasive interventions. However, it is unclear if this clinical definition reflects patient values and preferences. This protocol describes a study to elicit views from patients and families regarding features, tests, and treatments for upper gastrointestinal bleeding that are important to them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a sequential mixed-methods qualitative-dominant multi-centre study with an instrument-building aim. We developed orientation tools and educational materials in partnership with patients and family members, including a slide deck and executive summary. We will invite intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and family members of former ICU patients to participate. Following a virtual interactive presentation, participants will share their perspectives in an interview or focus group. Qualitative data will be analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis, wherein codes will be derived directly from the data rather than using preconceived categories. Concurrent data collection and analysis will occur. Quantitative data will include self-reported demographic characteristics. This study will synthesise the values and perspectives of patients and family members to create a new trial outcome for a randomised trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis. This study is planned for May 2022 to August 2023. The pilot work was completed in Spring 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethics approval from McMaster University and the University of Calgary. Findings will be disseminated via manuscript and through incorporation as a secondary trial outcome on stress ulcer prophylaxis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05506150.

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.

A National Modified Delphi Consensus Process to Prioritize Experiences and Interventions for Antipsychotic Medication Deprescribing Among Adult Patients With Critical Illness.

Antipsychotic medications are frequently prescribed to critically ill patients leading to their continuation at transitions of care thereafter. The aim of this study was to generate evidence-informed consensus statements with key stakeholders on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing for ICU patients. DESIGN: We completed three rounds of surveys in a National modified Delphi consensus process. During rounds 1 and 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 9-strongly agree) to rate perceptions related to antipsychotic prescribing (i.e., experiences regarding delivery of patient care), knowledge and frequency of antipsychotic use, knowledge surrounding antipsychotic guideline recommendations, and strategies (i.e., interventions addressing current antipsychotic prescribing practices) for antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Consensus was defined as a median score of 1-3 or 7-9. During round 3, participants ranked statements on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies that achieved consensus (median score 7-9) using a weighted ranking scale (0-100 points) to determine priority. SETTING: Online surveys distributed across Canada. SUBJECTS: Fifty-seven stakeholders (physicians, nurses, pharmacists) who work with ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants prioritized six consensus statements on strategies for consideration when developing and implementing interventions to guide antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Statements focused on limiting antipsychotic prescribing to patients: 1) with hyperactive delirium, 2) at risk to themselves, their family, and/or staff due to agitation, and 3) whose care and treatment are being impacted due to agitation or delirium, and prioritizing 4) communication among staff about antipsychotic effectiveness, 5) direct and efficient communication tools on antipsychotic deprescribing at transitions of care, and 6) medication reconciliation at transitions of care. CONCLUSIONS: We engaged diverse stakeholders to generate evidence-informed consensus statements regarding antipsychotic prescribing perceptions and practices that can be used to implement interventions to promote antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies for ICU patients with and following critical illness.

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.

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.

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.

Antipsychotic prescribing practices and patient, family member and healthcare professional perceptions of antipsychotic prescribing in acute care settings: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Antipsychotic medications are commonly prescribed off-label in acutely ill patients for non-psychiatric clinical indications such as delirium or insomnia. New prescription initiation of antipsychotics in acute care settings increases the proportion of patients discharged home on antipsychotics without approved clinical indication. Long-term use of antipsychotics is associated with increased risk of sudden cardiac death, falls and cognitive impairment. An understanding of acute care off-label antipsychotic prescribing practices and healthcare professional, patient and family perceptions related to antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing is necessary to facilitate in-hospital deprescribing initiatives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We present the protocol for a scoping review following the methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search five databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to 3 July 2021 (ie, planned search date). We will include both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies to identify antipsychotic prescribing practices, and to describe healthcare professional, patient and family perceptions towards antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing in the acute care setting. Protocols, systematic and scoping reviews will be excluded. Two reviewers will calibrate and perform study screening and data abstraction for quantitative and qualitative outcomes of eligible studies. Quantitative outcomes will include study identifiers, demographics and descriptive statistics of antipsychotic prescribing practices. Qualitative synthesis describing perceptions on antipsychotic prescribing practices will include deductive thematic analysis with mapping of themes to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework, a 14-domain behaviour and behaviour change framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be required for this study as only data from published studies in which informed consent was obtained by primary investigators will be retrieved and analysed. The results of this scoping review will inform integrated knowledge translation initiatives aimed at in-hospital antipsychotic medication deprescribing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Consent models in Canadian critical care randomized controlled trials: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to describe consent models used in Canadian-led adult and pediatric intensive care unit (ICU/PICU) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our secondary objectives were to determine the consent rate of ICU/PICU RCTs that did and did not use an alternate consent model to describe consent procedures. SOURCE: Using scoping review methodology, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (from 1998 to June 2019) for trials published in English or French. We included Canadian-led RCTs that reported on the effects of an intervention on ICU/PICU patients or their families. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, abstracted data, and achieved consensus. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 48 RCTs of 17,558 patients. Included RCTs had ethics approval to use prior informed consent (43/48; 90%), deferred consent (13/48; 27%), waived consent (5/48; 10%), and verbal consent (1/48; 2%) models. Fifteen RCTs (15/48; 31%) had ethics approval to use more than one consent model. Twice as many trials used alternate consent between 2010 and 2019 (13/19) than between 2000 and 2009 (6/19). The consent rate for RCTs using only prior informed consent ranged from 54 to 91% (ICU) and 43 to 94% (PICU) and from 78 to 100% (ICU) and 74 to 87% (PICU) in trials using an alternate/hybrid consent model. CONCLUSION: Alternate consent models were used in the minority of Canadian-led ICU/PICU RCTs but have been used more frequently over the last decade. This suggests that Canadian ethics boards and research communities are becoming more accepting of alternate consent models in ICU/PICU trials.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Notre objectif principal était de décrire les modèles de consentement utilisés dans les études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) menées par des chercheurs canadiens dans les unités de soins intensifs adultes et pédiatriques (USI/USIP). Nos objectifs secondaires étaient de déterminer le taux de consentement aux ERC à l'USI et l'USIP qui utilisaient et n'utilisaient pas un autre modèle de consentement pour décrire les processus de consentement. SOURCES: À l'aide d'une méthodologie d'étude de portée, nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE, Embase et CENTRAL (de 1998 à juin 2019) pour en tirer les études publiées en anglais ou en français. Nous avons inclus des ERC dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens qui rapportaient les effets d'une intervention sur les patients à l'USI/USIP ou leurs familles. Deux examinateurs indépendants ont évalué l'admissibilité, résumé les données et atteint un consensus. RéSULTATS PRINCIPAUX: Nous avons identifié 48 ERC portant sur 17 558 patients. Les ERC incluses avaient obtenu l'approbation du comité d'éthique pour l'utilisation de modèles de consentement éclairé préalable (43/48; 90 %), de consentement différé (13/48; 27 %), de renoncement au consentement (5/48; 10 %) et de consentement verbal (1/48; 2 %). Quinze ERC (15/48; 31 %) avaient reçu l'approbation du comité d'éthique pour utiliser plus d'un modèle de consentement. Deux fois plus d'études ont utilisé un autre type de consentement entre 2010 et 2019 (13/19) qu'entre 2000 et 2009 (6/19). Le taux de consentement pour les ERC utilisant uniquement un consentement éclairé préalable variait de 54 à 91 % (USI) et de 43 à 94 % (USIP), contre 78 à 100 % (USI) et 74 à 87 % (USIP) pour les études utilisant un modèle de consentement alternatif/hybride. CONCLUSION: Des modèles de consentement alternatif ont été utilisés dans une minorité des ERC en USI/USIP dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens, mais ils ont été utilisés plus fréquemment au cours de la dernière décennie. Cela donne à penser que les comités d'éthique et les communautés de recherche canadiens acceptent de plus en plus les modèles de consentement alternatifs dans les études réalisées en USI et en USIP.

Impact of Restricted Visitation Policies during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Communication between Critically Ill Patients, Families, and Clinicians: A Qualitative Interview Study.

Rationale: Restricted visitation policies during the first wave of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have had a major impact on the ways that intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians communicated with patients and their families, requiring the use of innovative strategies to adapt to new communication structures. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to describe the impact of restricted visitation policies on communication and to identify strategies that could be used to facilitate better communication within Canadian ICUs from the perspective of those affected. Methods: We conducted semistructured individual interviews with critically ill patients, their families, and clinicians from 23 Canadian ICUs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between July 2020 and October 2020. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify relevant themes and subthemes. Results: Forty-one interviews were conducted with 3 patients, 8 family members, 17 nurses, and 13 physicians. Five themes were identified from the analysis: 1) patient and family psychosocial and information needs; 2) communication tools; 3) quality of communication; 4) changing roles and responsibilities of patients and nurses/physicians; and 5) facilitators or barriers to implementing alternative communication. Participants identified strategies to leverage new videoconference technology and communication structures to preserve the quality of communication. Conclusions: Our study identified challenges and opportunities related to communication between critically ill patients, families, and ICU clinicians due to the restricted hospital visitation policies during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of videoconference technology and changes to communication structure were important strategies to facilitate effective communication within the ICU.