Eaton, Tammy L.

Abstract Background Acute hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure are among the most common reasons for ICU admission and need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) strategies—including high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)—may prevent intubation, improve outcomes, and reduce ICU utilization. However, there is uncertainty regarding optimal patient and modality selection, resulting in variable implementation. There are no clinical practice guidelines comprehensively addressing the use of the different noninvasive respiratory support strategies across the spectrum of acute respiratory failure. Objective To update and develop new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations informing noninvasive respiratory support use, including HFNC, NIV and CPAP, in adults with acute respiratory failure. Methods A multidisciplinary panel used the GRADE approach to address four PICO questions related to the use of NIRS for hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure, preoxygenation for intubation, and post-extubation respiratory support. Recommendations were informed by several systematic reviews and network meta-analyses. Results The panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC and a conditional recommendation for NIV or CPAP for adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with close monitoring for the need for escalation of respiratory support, based primarily on effects on need for intubation. For acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, the panel made a strong recommendation for NIV to reduce mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and a conditional recommendation for HFNC only in patients with less severe hypercapnia and with mild acidemia (eg, pH > 7.25), provided that close monitoring and prompt escalation to NIV are available. The panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC or NIV for preoxygenation prior to endotracheal intubation to prevent peri-intubation hypoxemia. The panel also issued a risk-based recommendation, suggesting HFNC for low-risk patients and NIV for high-risk patients to reduce the need for re-intubation following extubation after critical illness. Conclusions Noninvasive respiratory support strategies are effective in improving outcomes in a range of clinical scenarios. We provide evidence-based recommendations, which can be further informed by patient risk, institutional capacity, and interface tolerance.

Abstract Rationale: Critical illness survivors often experience anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to traumatic experiences, sedation, and delirium. Early interventions of psychological support may help mitigate mental health deficits post-ICU. Memory of the ICU stay may play a key role in addressing trauma and facilitating therapeutic engagement. Therefore, we sought to determine the relationship between ICU memory recollection, in-ICU delirium, and mental health outcomes at 1-month follow-up in a critical illness recovery center. Methods: We analyzed data collected at 1-month follow-up in a critical illness recovery center seeing adults who had ICU stays of >4 days with sepsis, respiratory failure, and/or delirium. Patients were asked, “Do you remember your experience in the ICU, and if so, can you describe your most impactful memories?” and we qualitatively coded responses for A) presence/absence of memories and B) type of memories described. We analyzed unadjusted associations between demographic, clinical, and mental health measures (anxiety, depression, and PTSD) and memory recollection using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results: Among 196 patients seen at 1-month follow-up, 96 (49%) reported memories of their ICU stay. Of these, 44 (46%) described support they received in the ICU (e.g., feeling “safe and watched” by ICU staff, spouse at bedside), 36 (38%) recalled delusions and/or hallucinations (e.g., being kidnapped), 35 (37%) remembered specific treatments (e.g., cardioversion), and 33 (34%) described symptoms (e.g., pain, constipation). Baseline characteristics and critical illness features are shown in the Table. Patients who reported no memories of their ICU stay were more frequently admitted with neurological diagnoses, whereas those who reported memories were more often admitted with trauma or burns (p<0.001). Those without memories had more delirium days than those reporting memories (p=0.02). Although PTSD and anxiety symptoms at 1-month follow-up were not associated with memories, patients who remembered their ICU stay had fewer depression symptoms (p=0.04). Conclusions: One month after their critical illness, half of survivors recalled their ICU experience, with memories ranging from supportive interactions to distressing experiences. In unadjusted analyses, memory recollection was associated with fewer depressive symptoms during follow-up, but a larger study is needed to determine whether this association persists after adjusting for potential confounders. Memories of the ICU may provide a therapeutic foundation for interventions targeting depression after critical illness, such as exposure therapy or ICU diaries, which may improve mental health outcomes in critical illness survivors.

Abstract Rationale: ICU nurses can experience high levels of burnout and job dissatisfaction due to stressors associated with high-stakes patient care, uncertain outcomes, and constant exposure to death. Witnessing patient recovery and/or disability status in the weeks or months after hospital discharge through reconnection with survivors of critical illness and their families may offer emotional and professional benefits to ICU nurses. However, the impact of connecting with patients’ post-ICU outcomes on nursing clinical practice and job satisfaction has not been well explored. This study aimed to investigate pragmatic perspectives from ICU nurses related to their insights on long-term patient outcomes after critical illness with a goal of identifying key mechanisms that may be associated with impacts on clinical practice and job satisfaction. Methods: A web-based investigator-designed survey was distributed to ICU nurses with endorsement from the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses for completion via their website and annual conference. Survey items included quantitative and open-ended prompts to examine the impact of reconnecting with ICU survivors on clinical practice and job satisfaction. Thematic analysis was performed on free-text responses. Results: Fifty-four ICU nurses (76% female) participated in the survey (June 2023-May 2024), with a median age of 41 years and a median of 7 years of critical care experience. Among them, 89% reported that reconnecting with survivors positively impacted their job satisfaction, and 78% felt that reconnecting influenced their clinical practice. Thematic analysis revealed three themes: Empathy and Human Connection – Nurses felt validated and fulfilled knowing their care positively impacted patients’ lives, reinforcing the meaning of their work. These interactions fostered greater empathy, reminding nurses of the real-life impact of their care.Validation of Effort and Accomplishment – Nurses reported a stronger sense of accomplishment seeing the positive outcomes of their work. Reconnecting with survivors reaffirmed the importance of their roles, strengthening nurses’ sense of purpose and commitment.Positive Emotional Impact and Job Satisfaction – Interactions with survivors provided emotional uplift, enhancing job satisfaction and reminding nurses of the rewarding aspects of their roles. Gratitude and progress from survivors motivated nurses, helping them manage the emotional challenges of ICU work. Conclusion: Reconnecting with ICU survivors and their families may have positive impacts on job satisfaction and clinical practice by providing emotional rewards, reinforcing nurses’ professional purpose, and validating their contributions to patient recovery. Embedding structured, low-cost re-engagement activities with critical illness survivors could offer valuable benefits to the ICU nurse workforce.

OBJECTIVES: To engage critical care end-users (survivors and caregivers) to describe their emotions and experiences across their recovery trajectory, and elicit their ideas and solutions for health service improvements to improve the ICU recovery experience. DESIGN: End-user engagement as part of a qualitative design using the Framework Analysis method. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine’s THRIVE international collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support groups). SUBJECTS: Patients and caregivers following critical illness and identified through the collaboratives. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six interviews were conducted. The following themes were identified: 1) Emotions and experiences of patients—“Loss of former self; Experiences of disability and adaptation”; 2) Emotions and experiences of caregivers—“Emotional impacts, adopting new roles, and caregiver burden; Influence of gender roles; Adaptation, adjustment, recalibration”; and 3) Patient and caregiver-generated solutions to improve recovery across the arc of care—“Family-targeted education; Expectation management; Rehabilitation for patients and caregivers; Peer support groups; Reconnecting with ICU post-discharge; Access to community-based supports post-discharge; Psychological support; Education of issues of ICU survivorship for health professionals; Support across recovery trajectory.” Themes were mapped to a previously published recovery framework (Timing It Right) that captures patient and caregiver experiences and their support needs across the phases of care from the event/diagnosis to adaptation post-discharge home. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers reported a range of emotions and experiences across the recovery trajectory from ICU to home. Through end-user engagement strategies many potential solutions were identified that could be implemented by health services and tested to support the delivery of higher-quality care for ICU survivors and their caregivers that extend from tertiary to primary care settings.

Objectives Social determinants of health (SDoH) contribute to health outcomes. We identified SDoH that were modified by critical illness, and the effect of such modifications on recovery from critical illness. Design In-depth semistructured interviews following hospital discharge. Interview transcripts were mapped against a pre-existing social policy framework: money and work; skills and education; housing, transport and neighbourhoods; and family, friends and social connections. Setting 14 hospital sites in the USA, UK and Australia. Participants Patients and caregivers, who had been admitted to critical care from three continents. Results 86 interviews were analysed (66 patients and 20 caregivers). SDoH, both financial and non-financial in nature, could be negatively influenced by exposure to critical illness, with a direct impact on health-related outcomes at an individual level. Financial modifications included changes to employment status due to critical illness-related disability, alongside changes to income and insurance status. Negative health impacts included the inability to access essential healthcare and an increase in mental health problems. Conclusions Critical illness appears to modify SDoH for survivors and their family members, potentially impacting recovery and health. Our findings suggest that increased attention to issues such as one’s social network, economic security and access to healthcare is required following discharge from critical care.

OBJECTIVES: The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Thirty-nine RCs, representing a combined 156 hospitals within 29 health systems participated. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: RC demographics, referral criteria, and operating characteristics were collected, including measures used to assess physical, psychologic, and cognitive recoveries. Thirty-nine RC surveys were completed (94% response rate). ICU-RC teams included physicians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and advanced practice providers. Funding sources for ICU-RCs included clinical billing (n = 20, 77%), volunteer staff support (n = 15, 58%), institutional staff/space support (n = 13, 46%), and grant or foundation funding (n = 3, 12%). Forty-six percent of RCs report patient visit durations of 1 hour or longer. ICU-RC teams reported use of validated scales to assess psychologic recovery (93%), physical recovery (89%), and cognitive recovery (86%) more often in standard visits compared with COVID-RC teams (psychologic, 54%; physical, 69%; and cognitive, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Operating structures of RCs vary, though almost all describe modest capacity and reliance on volunteerism and discretionary institutional support. ICU- and COVID-RCs in the United States employ varied funding sources and endorse different assessment measures during visits to guide care coordination. Common features include integration of ICU clinicians, interdisciplinary approach, and focus on severe critical illness. The heterogeneity in RC structures and processes contributes to future research on the optimal structure and process to achieve the best postintensive care syndrome and postacute sequelae of COVID outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Investigate the challenges experienced by survivors of critical illness and their caregivers across the transitions of care from intensive care to community, and the potential problem-solving strategies used to navigate these challenges. DESIGN: Qualitative design—data generation via interviews and data analysis via the framework analysis method. SETTING: Patients and caregivers from three continents, identified through the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s THRIVE international collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support groups). SUBJECTS: Patients and caregivers following critical illness. INTERVENTIONS: Nil MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From 86 interviews (66 patients, 20 caregivers), we identified the following major themes: 1) Challenges for patients—interacting with the health system and gaps in care; managing others’ expectations of illness and recovery. 2) Challenges for caregivers—health system shortfalls and inadequate communication; lack of support for caregivers. 3) Patient and caregiver-driven problem solving across the transitions of care—personal attributes, resources, and initiative; receiving support and helping others; and acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors and caregivers experienced a range of challenges across the transitions of care. There were distinct and contrasting themes related to the caregiver experience. Survivors and caregivers used comparable problem-solving strategies to navigate the challenges encountered across the transitions of care.

Background After critical illness, patients are often left with impairments in physical, social, emotional, and cognitive functioning. Peer support interventions have been implemented internationally to ameliorate these issues. Objective To explore what patients believed to be the key mechanisms of effectiveness of peer support programs implemented during critical care recovery. Methods In a secondary analysis of an international qualitative data set, 66 telephone interviews with patients were undertaken across 14 sites in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States to understand the effect of peer support during recovery from critical illness. Prevalent themes were documented with framework analysis. Results Most patients who had been involved in peer support programs reported benefit. Patients described 3 primary mechanisms: (1) sharing experiences, (2) care debriefing, and (3) altruism. Conclusion Peer support is a relatively simple intervention that could be implemented to support patients during recovery from critical illness. However, more research is required into how these programs can be implemented in a safe and sustainable way in clinical practice.