Enablers and Barriers to Implementing ICU Follow-Up Clinics and Peer Support Groups Following Critical Illness: The Thrive Collaboratives.

OBJECTIVES: Data are lacking regarding implementation of novel strategies such as follow-up clinics and peer support groups, to reduce the burden of postintensive care syndrome. We sought to discover enablers that helped hospital-based clinicians establish post-ICU clinics and peer support programs, and identify barriers that challenged them. DESIGN: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data. SETTING: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents. SUBJECTS: Clinicians from 21 sites. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten enablers and nine barriers to implementation of "ICU follow-up clinics" were described. A key enabler to generate support for clinics was providing insight into the human experience of survivorship, to obtain interest from hospital administrators. Significant barriers included patient and family lack of access to clinics and clinic funding. Nine enablers and five barriers to the implementation of "peer support groups" were identified. Key enablers included developing infrastructure to support successful operationalization of this complex intervention, flexibility about when peer support should be offered, belonging to the international learning collaborative. Significant barriers related to limited attendance by patients and families due to challenges in creating awareness, and uncertainty about who might be appropriate to attend and target in advertising. CONCLUSIONS: Several enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups should be taken into account and leveraged to improve ICU recovery. Among the most important enablers are motivated clinician leaders who persist to find a path forward despite obstacles.

Key mechanisms by which post-ICU activities can improve in-ICU care: results of the international THRIVE collaboratives.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the key mechanisms that clinicians perceive improve care in the intensive care unit (ICU), as a result of their involvement in post-ICU programs. METHODS: Qualitative inquiry via focus groups and interviews with members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's THRIVE collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support). Framework analysis was used to synthesize and interpret the data. RESULTS: Five key mechanisms were identified as drivers of improvement back into the ICU: (1) identifying otherwise unseen targets for ICU quality improvement or education programs-new ideas for quality improvement were generated and greater attention paid to detail in clinical care. (2) Creating a new role for survivors in the ICU-former patients and family members adopted an advocacy or peer volunteer role. (3) Inviting critical care providers to the post-ICU program to educate, sensitize, and motivate them-clinician peers and trainees were invited to attend as a helpful learning strategy to gain insights into post-ICU care requirements. (4) Changing clinician's own understanding of patient experience-there appeared to be a direct individual benefit from working in post-ICU programs. (5) Improving morale and meaningfulness of ICU work-this was achieved by closing the feedback loop to ICU clinicians regarding patient and family outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The follow-up of patients and families in post-ICU care settings is perceived to improve care within the ICU via five key mechanisms. Further research is required in this novel area.

Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine. An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) represents a paradigm shift in research methods aimed to create the body of evidence that supports clinical practice and informs health care decisions. PCOR integrates patients and other key stakeholders including family members, policy makers, clinicians, and patient advocates and advocacy groups as research partners throughout all stages of the research process. The importance of PCOR has received increased recognition, yet there is little evidence available to help guide researchers interested in the design and conduct of PCOR. In May 2014, we convened a workshop to identify key issues related to designing, conducting, and disseminating findings from PCOR studies. Workshop participants included a diverse group of patients, patient advocates, clinicians (physicians, nurses, psychologists, and advanced practice providers), researchers, administrators, and funders within and beyond the pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine communities. Participants identified important issues and considerations to address when undertaking PCOR. In this report, we summarize the results of this workshop to inform members of the pulmonary, sleep, and critical care community interested in participating in PCOR. Key findings include the following: 1) requirements for research to be considered PCOR; 2) the potential significant impact of PCOR on patients, clinicians, and researchers; 3) guiding principles and practical strategies to form successful patient-centered research partnerships, conduct PCOR, and disseminate study results to a broad audience of stakeholders; 4) benefits and challenges of PCOR for researchers; and 5) resources available within the American Thoracic Society to help with the conduct of PCOR.

Palliative and end-of-life educational practices in US pulmonary and critical care training programs.

PURPOSE: To describe educational features in palliative and end-of-life care (PEOLC) in pulmonary/critical care fellowships and identify the features associated with perceptions of trainee competence in PEOLC. METHODS: A survey of educational features in 102 training programs and the perceived skill and comfort level of trainees in 6 PEOLC domains: communication, symptom control, ethical/legal, community/institutional resources, specific syndromes, and ventilator withdrawal. We evaluated associations between perceived trainee competence/comfort in PEOLC and training program features, using regression analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of program directors (PDs) reported faculty with training in PEOLC; 30% had a written PEOLC curriculum. Neither feature was associated with trainee competence/comfort. Program directors and trainees rated bedside PEOLC teaching highly. Only 20% offered PEOLC rotations; most trainees judged these valuable. Most PDs and trainees reported that didactic teaching was insufficient in communication, although sufficient teaching of this was associated with perceived trainee competence in communication. Perceived trainee competence in managing institutional resources was rated poorly. Program directors reporting significant barriers to PEOLC education also judged trainees less competent in PEOLC. Time constraint was the greatest barrier. CONCLUSION: This survey of PEOLC education in US pulmonary/critical care fellowships identified associations between certain program features and perceived trainee skill in PEOLC. These results generate hypotheses for further study.

Impact of critical care medicine training programs' palliative care education and bedside tools on ICU use at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) use at the end of life is rising. Little research has focused on associations among critical care fellows' training, institutional support, and bedside tools with ICU use at the end of life. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether hospital and critical care medicine program interventions were associated with ICU use in the last 6 months of life for patients with chronic illness. METHODS: Our observational, retrospective study explored associations between results from a survey of critical care program directors and hospital-level Medicare data on ICU use in the last 6 months of life. Program directors evaluated quality of palliative care education in their critical care fellowships and reported on the number of bedside tools and the presence or absence of an inpatient palliative care consultation service. RESULTS: For the 89 hospitals and 71 affiliated training programs analyzed, there were statistically significant relationships between 2 of the explanatory variables-the quality of palliative care education and the number of bedside tools-in ICU use. Each level of increased educational quality (1-5 Likert scale) was associated with a 0.57-day decrease in ICU days, whereas, for each additional, evidence-based bedside tool, there was a 0.31-day decrease. The presence of an inpatient palliative care program was not a significant predictor of ICU use. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the quality of palliative care training in critical care medicine programs and the use of bedside tools were independently associated with reduced ICU use at the end of life.