Overall Health Following Pediatric Critical Illness: A Scoping Review of Instruments and Methodology.

OBJECTIVES: Families identify overall health as a key outcome after pediatric critical illness. We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a scoping review to determine the methods, populations, and instruments used to evaluate overall health outcomes for both children and their families after critical illness. DESIGN: Planned Secondary Analysis of a Scoping Review. SETTING: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry databases from 1970 to 2017 to identify studies which measured postdischarge overall health of children who survived critical illness and their families. SUBJECTS: Articles reporting overall health outcomes after pediatric critical illness. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among the 407 articles which measured outcomes following pediatric critical illness, 161 (40%) measured overall health. The overall health domain was most commonly measured in traumatic brain injury (44%) and the general PICU populations (16%). In total, there were 39 unique measures used to evaluate overall health. Across all subjects, seven measures accounted for 89% of instruments, with the Glasgow Outcome Scale (47%) and the Pediatric Overall Performance Category (17%) being most commonly used. Excluding studies targeting survivors of traumatic brain injury, Pediatric Overall Performance Category, Glasgow Outcome Scale, and the General Health Questionnaire were the most commonly used instruments. Patients were followed for a median 10.5 months (interquartile range, 4.5-21 mo). CONCLUSIONS: Overall health was commonly assessed post-PICU discharge, especially in the traumatic brain injury population, using a heterogenous array of measures. Evaluation and consensus are imperative to identify the most appropriate method to measure overall health with the goal of improving care efficacy and facilitating recovery across populations of critically ill children.

Health-related quality of life outcome measures for children surviving critical care: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) has been identified as one of the core outcomes most important to assess following pediatric critical care, yet there are no data on the use of HRQL in pediatric critical care research. We aimed to determine the HRQL instruments most commonly used to assess children surviving critical care and describe study methodology, patient populations, and instrument characteristics to identify areas of deficiency and guide investigators conducting HRQL research. METHODS: We queried PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Registry for studies evaluating pediatric critical care survivors published 1970-2017. We used dual review for article selection and data extraction. RESULTS: Of 60,349 citations, 66 articles met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were observational (89.4%) and assessed HRQL at one post-discharge time-point (86.4%), and only 10.6% of studies included a baseline assessment. Time to the first follow-up assessment ranged from 1 month to 10 years post-hospitalization (median 3 years, IQR 0.5-6). For 26 prospective studies, the median follow-up time was 0.5 years [IQR 0.25-1]. Parent/guardian proxy-reporting was used in 83.3% of studies. Fifteen HRQL instruments were employed, with four used in >5% of articles: the Health Utility Index (n = 22 articles), the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (n = 17), the Child Health Questionnaire (n = 16), and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (n = 9). CONCLUSION: HRQL assessment in pediatric critical care research has been centered around four instruments, though existing literature is limited by minimal longitudinal follow-up and infrequent assessment of baseline HRQL.

Postdischarge Outcome Domains in Pediatric Critical Care and the Instruments Used to Evaluate Them: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing outcomes after pediatric critical illness is imperative to evaluate practice and improve recovery of patients and their families. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify domains and instruments previously used to evaluate these outcomes. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: We queried PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Registry for studies evaluating pediatric critical care survivors or their families published between 1970 and 2017. We identified articles using key words related to pediatric critical illness and outcome domains. We excluded articles if the majority of patients were greater than 18 years old or less than 1 month old, mortality was the sole outcome, or only instrument psychometrics or procedural outcomes were reported. We used dual review for article selection and data extraction and categorized outcomes by domain (overall health, emotional, physical, cognitive, health-related quality of life, social, family). SUBJECTS: Manuscripts evaluating outcomes after pediatric critical illness. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 60,349 citations, 407 articles met inclusion criteria; 87% were published after 2000. Study designs included observational (85%), interventional (7%), qualitative (5%), and mixed methods (3%). Populations most frequently evaluated were traumatic brain injury (n = 96), general pediatric critical illness (n = 87), and congenital heart disease (n = 72). Family members were evaluated in 74 studies (18%). Studies used a median of 2 instruments (interquartile range 1-4 instruments) and evaluated a median of 2 domains (interquartile range 2-3 domains). Social (n = 223), cognitive (n = 183), and overall health (n = 161) domains were most frequently studied. Across studies, 366 unique instruments were used, most frequently the Wechsler and Glasgow Outcome Scales. Individual domains were evaluated using a median of 77 instruments (interquartile range 39-87 instruments). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive, generalizable understanding of outcomes after pediatric critical illness is limited by heterogeneity in methodology, populations, domains, and instruments. Developing assessment standards may improve understanding of postdischarge outcomes and support development of interventions after pediatric critical illness.

Development of a core outcome set for pediatric critical care outcomes research.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) teams provide care for critically ill children with diverse and often complex medical and surgical conditions. Researchers often lack guidance on an approach to select the best outcomes when evaluating this critically ill population. Studies would be enhanced by incorporating multi-stakeholder preferences to better evaluate clinical care. This manuscript outlines the methodology currently being used to develop a PICU Core Outcome Set (COS). This PICU COS utilizes mixed methods, an inclusive stakeholder approach, and a modified Delphi consensus process that will serve as a resource for PICU research programs. METHODS: A Scoping Review of the PICU literature evaluating outcomes after pediatric critical illness, a qualitative study interviewing PICU survivors and their parents, and other relevant literature will serve to inform a modified, international Delphi consensus process. The Delphi process will derive a set of minimum domains for evaluation of outcomes of critically ill children and their families. Delphi respondents include researchers, multidisciplinary clinicians, families and former patients, research funding agencies, payors, and advocates. Consensus meetings will refine and finalize the domains of the COS, outline a battery instruments for use in future studies, and prepare for extensive dissemination for broad implementation. DISCUSSION: The PICU COS will be a guideline resource for investigators to assure that outcomes most important to all stakeholders are considered in PICU clinical research in addition to those deemed most important to individual scientists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COMET database (http://www.comet-initiative.org/, Record ID 1131, 01/01/18).