Two-year prospective cohort of intensive care survivors enrolled on a digitally enabled recovery pathway focussed on individualised recovery goal attainment.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial evidence documenting physical, psychological, and cognitive problems experienced by intensive care unit (ICU) survivors, few studies explore interventions supporting recovery after hospital discharge. Individualised recovery goal setting, the standard of care across many rehabilitation areas, is rarely used for ICU survivors. Digital health technologies may help to address current service fragmentation and gaps. We developed and implemented a digital ICU recovery pathway using the aTouchaway e-health platform. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore recovery barriers and challenges; recovery goals set and achieved; self-reported patient outcomes; and healthcare costs of patients enrolled on a 12-week digital ICU recovery pathway after hospital discharge. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational single-centre cohort study (June 2021 to May 2023) at a 90-bed tertiary critical care service in London, UK. We enrolled adults ventilated for ≥3 days who were able to participate in recovery activities. We ascertained baseline recovery challenges and identified recovery goals and achievement over 12 weeks. We collected patient-reported outcomes at 2-4, 12-14, 26-28 weeks and healthcare utilisation monthly for 28 weeks. RESULTS: We enrolled 105 participants (35% of eligible patients). Common rehabilitation challenges were standing balance (60%), walking indoors (56%), and washing (64%) and dressing (47%) abilities. Of 522 home recovery goals, 63% weekly, 48% monthly, and 38% aspirational goals were achieved. Most goals related to self-care: ability to move outside (91 goals, 55% achieved) and inside (45 goals, 47% achieved) the home and community access (65 goals, 48% achieved). Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale scores improved from timepoints 1 to 2 (median [interquartile range]: 15 [7, 19] versus 19 [15, 21], P = 0.01). Total healthcare costs were £240,017 (median [interquartile range] cost per patient: £784 [£125, £4419]). CONCLUSIONS: This study found multiple ongoing functional deficits, challenges achieving recovery goals, and limited improvements in self-reported outcomes, with moderate healthcare costs after hospital discharge indicate substantial ongoing rehabilitative needs.

Clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators for the provision of actionable processes of care important for persistent or chronic critical illness.

AIM: To explore clinician-perceived barriers to and facilitators for the provision of actionable processes of care important for patients with persistent or chronic critical illness. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive interview study. METHODS: Secondary analysis of semi-structured telephone interviews (December 2018 - February 2019) with professionally diverse clinicians working with adults experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness in Canadian intensive care units. We used deductive content analysis informed by the Social-Ecological Model. RESULTS: We recruited 31 participants from intensive care units across nine Canadian provinces. Reported intrapersonal level barriers to the provision of actionable processes of care included lack of training, negative emotions and challenges prioritizing these patients. Facilitators included establishment of positive relations and trust with patients and family. Interpersonal barriers included communication difficulties, limited access to physicians and conflict. Facilitators included communication support, time spent with the patient/family and conflict management. Institutional barriers comprised inappropriate care processes, inadequate resources and disruptive environmental conditions. Facilitators were regular team rounds, appropriate staffing and employment of a primary care (nurse and/or physician) model. Community-level barriers included inappropriate care location and insufficient transition support. Facilitators were accessed to alternate care sites/teams and to formalized transition support. Public policy-level barriers included inadequacy of formal education programs for the care of these patients; knowledge implementation for patient management was identified as a facilitator. CONCLUSION: Our results highlighted multilevel barriers and facilitators to the delivery of actionable processes important for quality care for patient/family experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness. IMPACT: Using the Social-Ecological Model, the results of this study provide intra and interpersonal, institutional, community and policy-level barriers to address and facilitators to harness to improve the care of patients/family experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness. REPORTING METHOD: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Development of a menu of recovery goals to facilitate goal setting after critical illness.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an expert-informed (including end users) recovery goal menu for adults recovering from critical illness applicable to the community/home setting. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN: Stage 1 Item generation: iterative development of domains, sub-domains, and goals in consultation with former intensive care patients, family members and expert clinicians. Stage 2 Content validity assessment: cognitive interviews and the content validity index. SETTING: Virtual consultation meetings facilitated by the research team at King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content validity as assessed by: the Item-Content Validity Index (I-CVI), Scale Level-Content Validity Index/Universal Agreement (S-CVI/UA) score, the Scale Level-Content Validity Index/Average (S-CVI/Ave) score and Average Content Validity Ratio (CVR). RESULTS: Item generation resulted in a goal menu comprising 4 domains, 22 sub-domains and 95 goals assigned as follows: Self-care: 9 sub-domains with 37 goals, Productivity: 7 sub-domains with 13 goals, Leisure: 3 sub-domains with 25 goals, and Person domain 3 sub-domains with 20 goals. Cognitive interviews resulted in addition of 79 goals and modification of 7, addition of 4 new sub-domains and modification of 4, thus resulting in 4 domains, 26 sub-domains with a total of 174 goals. Twenty-four sub-domains (169 goals) were deemed relevant with Item-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) scores ranging from 0.72 to 1. Two sub-domains (5 goals) did not meet the 0.7 cut-off and were removed. The Scale Level-Content Validity Index/Universal Agreement (S-CVI/UA) score was 0.46; the Scale Level-Content Validity Index/Average (S-CVI/Ave) 0.91. Average Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was 0.93. CONCLUSION: An expert informed recovery goal menu for former intensive care patients has been developed with excellent content validity. The final goal menu comprises 169 goals within 24 sub-domains grouped under 4 domains. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: This menu will help patients to set goals and increase our understanding of how individuals recover from critical illness.

Therapy professionals in critical care: A UK wide workforce survey.

Introduction: National guidelines suggest recommended staffing levels for therapies. The aim of this study was to capture information on existing staffing levels, roles and responsibilities and service structures. Methods: An observational study using online surveys distributed to 245 critical care units across the United Kingdom (UK). Surveys consisted of a generic and five profession specific surveys. Results: Eight hundred sixty-two responses were received from 197 critical care units across the UK. Of those that responded, over 96% of units had input from dietetics, physiotherapy and SLT. Whereas only 59.1% and 48.1% had an OT or psychology service respectively. Units with ring fenced services had improved therapist to patient ratios. Discussion: There is significant variation in access to therapists for patients admitted to critical care in the UK, with many services not having services for core therapies such as psychology and OT. Where services do exist, they fall below the recommended guidance.

Protected therapy services for critical care: A subanalysis of the UK-wide workforce survey.

BACKGROUND: The existing United Kingdom (UK) allied health professional (AHP) workforce in critical care does not meet national standards, with widespread variation in the source of funding, service availability, and regularity of input. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this subanalysis was to determine the impact of protected services on the involvement of AHPs on direct and nondirect aspects of patient care. METHODS: This is a subanalysis of the previously published AHPs in critical care UK-wide workforce survey, an observational study using online surveys distributed to 245 critical care units across the UK. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Services with protected funding provided more daily input within critical care. This was most apparent for occupational therapy where daily input varied from 82.1% of units with protected services compared to just 10.3% in those without (p < 0.001). For all professions, most notably occupational therapy and speech and language therapy, protected services increased the regularity in which specific interventions were completed and had impact on involvement in nonclinical aspects of care including involved in multidisciplinary team meetings, clinical governance, and research. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of protected AHP services reduces compliance with national standards for therapy workforce. Based on these findings, UK and international critical care guidelines should promote protected AHP services for critical care.

Psychological distress and morbidity of family members experiencing virtual visiting in intensive care during COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, intensive care units (ICUs) around the world introduced virtual visiting to mediate the psychological impact of in-person visiting restrictions. Our objective was to evaluate levels of distress, depression, anxiety, and stress among family members experiencing virtual visits. METHODS: Multi-centre prospective observational study recruiting adult family members of critically ill patients in the United Kingdom (UK) using a bespoke virtual visiting solution (aTouchAway). We recruited participants and administered validated questionnaires digitally via their aTouchAway account. Prior to first virtual visit, participants completed the Distress Thermometer (score range 0-10) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS)-21. Following first and subsequent virtual visits, participants repeated the Distress Thermometer and completed the Discrete Emotions Questionnaire. RESULTS: We recruited 2166 adult family members of ICU patients in 37 UK hospitals. Most were grown up children (33%) or spouses/partners (23%). Most (91%) were ≤ 65 years. Mean (SD) pre-virtual-visit Distress Thermometer score was 7 (2.6) with 1349/2153 (62%) reporting severe distress. Pre-visit Distress Thermometer scores were associated with relationship type (spouse/partner OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27-2.12) but not family member age, or length of ICU stay. Mean (SD) post-visit Distress Thermometer score provided by 762 (35%) participants was 1.6 (3.2) points lower than pre-visit (P < 0.001). Of participants experiencing multiple visits, 22% continued to report severe distress. Median (IQR) pre-visit DASS-21 score was 18 (2-42) (1754 participants). Severe-to-extremely severe depression, anxiety, or stress were reported by 249 (14%), 321 (18%), and 165 (9%) participants, respectively. Participants reported a range of emotions with reassurance being the most common, anger being the least. CONCLUSION: Family members exposed to COVID-19 pandemic ICU visiting restrictions experienced severe distress. One fifth of family members reported severe-to-extremely sever anxiety or depression. Distress score magnitude and prevalence of severe distress decreased after undertaking one or more virtual visits.

Dietetic-Led Nutrition Interventions in Patients with COVID-19 during Intensive Care and Ward-Based Rehabilitation: A Single-Center Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: In this study, a report of dietitian-led nutrition interventions for patients with COVID-19 during ICU and ward-based rehabilitation is provided. As knowledge of COVID-19 and its medical treatments evolved through the course of the pandemic, dietetic-led interventions were compared between surge 1 (S1) and surge 2 (S2). METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted of patients admitted to the ICU service in a large academic hospital (London, UK). Clinical and nutrition data were collected during the first surge (March-June 2020; n = 200) and the second surge (November 2020-March 2021; n = 253) of COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 453 patients were recruited. All required individualized dietetic-led interventions during ICU admission as the ICU nutrition protocol did not meet nutritional needs. Feed adjustments for deranged renal function (p = 0.001) and propofol calories (p = 0.001) were more common in S1, whereas adjustment for gastrointestinal dysfunction was more common in S2 (p = 0.001). One-third of all patients were malnourished on ICU admission, and all lost weight in ICU, with a mean (SD) total percentage loss of 8.8% (6.9%). Further weight loss was prevented over the remaining hospital stay with continued dietetic-led interventions. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients have complex nutritional needs due to malnutrition on admission and ongoing weight loss. Disease complexity and evolving nature of medical management required multifaceted dietetic-led nutritional strategies, which differed between surges.

Observational study evaluating the nutritional impact of changing from 1% to 2% propofol in a cardiothoracic adult critical care unit.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional support in the critically ill aims to avoid under and overfeeding, adjusting to changes in energy expenditure during critical illness. The sedation propofol provides significant fat and energy load. We investigated whether changing from 1% to a 2% propofol, would decrease non-nutritional energy, avoid energy overfeeding and increase the amount of protein delivered. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed. The primary outcome was protein delivery. Secondary outcomes were energy from propofol fat and the total energy delivered from nutrition and propofol. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients were investigated, with 50 patients in each group. The propofol dose was comparable for each group. The nutrition energy prescribed was significantly less for the 1% compared to 2% group, taking the energy from propofol into consideration. Both groups had similar protein targets, although the amount delivered was significantly higher in the 2% group. Thirty-six percent of individuals receiving 1% exceeded 45% of total energy from fat. The poor delivery of nutrition resulted in inadequate energy and protein, irrespective of propofol dose. CONCLUSIONS: We investigated the impact of propofol on energy overfeeding and under delivery of protein, and highlighted suboptimal nutritional provision. Work is needed to investigate the harm that high-fat delivery may pose in light of poor nutrition delivery.