Frailty, Outcomes, Recovery and Care Steps of Critically Ill Patients (FORECAST): a prospective, multi-centre, cohort study.

PURPOSE: Frailty is common in critically ill patients but the timing and optimal method of frailty ascertainment, trajectory and relationship with care processes remain uncertain. We sought to elucidate the trajectory and care processes of frailty in critically ill patients as measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frailty Index (FI). METHODS: This is a multi-centre prospective cohort study enrolling patients ≥ 50 years old receiving life support > 24 h. Frailty severity was assessed with a CFS, and a FI based on the elements of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) at intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital discharge and 6 months. For the primary outcome of frailty prevalence, it was a priori dichotomously defined as a CFS ≥ 5 or FI ≥ 0.2. Processes of care, adverse events were collected during ICU and ward stays while outcomes were determined for ICU, hospital, and 6 months. RESULTS: In 687 patients, whose age (mean ± standard deviation) was 68.8 ± 9.2 years, frailty prevalence was higher when measured with the FI (CFS, FI %): ICU admission (29.8, 44.8), hospital discharge (54.6, 67.9), 6 months (34.1, 42.6). Compared to ICU admission, aggregate frailty severity increased to hospital discharge but improved by 6 months; individually, CFS and FI were higher in 45.3% and 50.6% patients, respectively at 6 months. Compared to hospital discharge, 18.7% (CFS) and 20% (FI) were higher at 6 months. Mortality was higher in frail patients. Processes of care and adverse events were similar except for worse ICU/ward mobility and more frequent delirium in frail patients. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty severity was dynamic, can be measured during recovery from critical illness using the CFS and FI which were both associated with worse outcomes. Although the CFS is a global measure, a CGA FI based may have advantages of being able to measure frailty levels, identify deficits, and potential targets for intervention.

Interfacility transfer of the critically ill: Transfer status does not influence survival.

PURPOSE: To estimate differences in case-mix adjusted hospital mortality between adult ICU patients who are transferred during their ICU-stay and those who are not. METHODS: 19,260 visits to 12 ICUs in Nova Scotia (NS), Canada April 2018-September 2023 were analyzed. Data were obtained from the NS Provincial ICU database. Generalized additive models (GAMs) were used to estimate differences in case-mix adjusted hospital mortality between patients who underwent transfer and those who did not. RESULTS: 1040/19,260 (5%) ICU visits involved interfacility-transfer. No difference in hospital mortality was identified between transferred and non-transferred patients by GAM (OR, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.19; p = 0.91). No mortality difference was observed between patients undergoing a single transfer versus multiple (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.45 to -1.69; p = 0.68). A GAM including the categories no transfer, one transfer, and multiple transfers identified a difference in hospital mortality for patients that underwent multiple transfers compared to non-transferred patients (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.00, p = 0.05), but no difference was identified in a post-hoc matched cohort sensitivity analysis (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.01, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The transfer of critically ill patients between ICUs in Nova Scotia did not impact case-mix adjusted hospital mortality.

Sepsis policy, guidelines and standards in Canada: a jurisdictional scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: To our knowledge, this study is the first to identify and describe current sepsis policies, clinical practice guidelines, and health professional training standards in Canada to inform evidence-based policy recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be designed and reported according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, Turning Research Into Practice and Policy Commons will be searched for policies, clinical practice guidelines and health professional training standards published or updated in 2010 onwards, and related to the identification, management or reporting of sepsis in Canada. Additional sources of evidence will be identified by searching the websites of Canadian organisations responsible for regulating the training of healthcare professionals and reporting health outcomes. All potentially eligible sources of evidence will be reviewed for inclusion, followed by data extraction, independently and in duplicate. The included policies will be collated and summarised to inform future evidence-based sepsis policy recommendations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed study does not require ethics approval. The results of the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at local, national and international forums.