Philbrick, Kemuel L.

Purpose Survivors of critical illness often acquire significant physical, cognitive, and psychological burdens following their intensive care unit (ICU) stay, termed “post-intensive care syndrome” (PICS). Screening for PICS is generally not performed outside of research settings largely due to lack of a simple assessment tool and time constraints. Methods This was a prospective cohort study at a single academic medical center in the USA. We included adults (18 years or older) who spent greater than 48 h in any ICU within the medical center. Following transfer out of the ICU and at 3 months, psychological, cognitive, and physical functioning were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale-Revised, Montreal Cognitive Assessment-blind, and Barthel Index. We compared these validated questionnaires to a brief, 15-item PICS screening tool (5 questions/domain) that was developed by our multidisciplinary study team and administered to study participants after ICU discharge to general care. The primary objectives of this study were to assess the ability of validated screening tools administered at ICU discharge to predict PICS at 3 months and develop a novel screening tool for identifying patients at risk of PICS. Major Findings 191 participants completed the initial questionnaire, and 109 (56%) completed the 3-month follow-up. PICS tool scores were compared to 3-month follow-up data from validated questionnaires to evaluate predictive performance. Overall, the screening tool weakly-to-moderately correlated with continuous outcomes of the validated measures at 3-month follow-up. When evaluating sensitivity and specificity for individual domains, the screening tool had an area under curve of >0.7 for all three domains, indicating moderate-to-good sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions We developed a brief PICS screening tool that is feasible to use without prior training that modestly predicted the development of PICS following ICU stay.

Background Catatonia in medically ill patients is rare but often unrecognized. This monograph summarizes current knowledge on the diagnosis, epidemiology, etiology, and management of catatonia occurring in the medical setting. Methods PubMed searches were used to identify relevant articles from 1962 to present. Results More than 3,000 articles were obtained and reviewed for relevance, including references of articles identified by the initial search. Several areas were identified as important, including: (1) catatonia and delirium; (2) malignant catatonia; (3) pediatric catatonia; (4) catatonia associated with another medical condition (CAMC); (5) drug exposure and withdrawal syndromes associated with catatonia; and (6) treatment of catatonia in the medical setting. Conclusions Catatonia in the medically ill appears to have numerous etiologies, although etiology does not seem to modify the general treatment approach of prompt administration of lorazepam. Delirium and catatonia are commonly comorbid in the medical setting and should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Electroconvulsive therapy should be offered to patients who do not respond to benzodiazepines or have malignant features. Removing offending agents and treating the underlying medical condition is paramount when treating CAMC. Memantine or amantadine may be helpful adjunctive agents. There is not enough evidence to support the use of antipsychotics or stimulants in treating CAMC.

Abstract RATIONALE: Many ICU patients experience physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments following resolution of critical illness, collectively referred to as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). PICS has become widely recognized within the critical care field, but how to screen for PICS does not currently have consensus. Development of a validated, concise PICS screening tool would allow for rapid identification of this vulnerable and understudied population. Therefore, this study's goal was to develop and evaluate a screening tool to identify patients at risk for PICS. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study in a quaternary academic hospital. We included adults ≥ 18 years old with ≥48 hours spent in an ICU. Exclusion criteria were admission for suicide attempt, severe cognitive impairment/dementia, life expectancy <3 months, and non-English speaking. We assessed mental, cognitive, and physical function following ICU discharge and at 3 months using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale-Revised, Montreal Cognitive Assessment-blind, and Barthel Index. Our team, including critical care physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, physical and occupational therapists, and nurses, developed a brief 15-item PICS screening tool (5 questions/domain). This tool was administered after patients were discharged from ICU stay to general care to assess its effectiveness in predicting impairments in all 3 domains at discharge and again at three months after hospital discharge, in comparison to previously mentioned validated questionnaires. Youden index statistical methods were used to determine potential “cutoff” values (scores) for the tool to maximize sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: A total of 194 patients from 6 ICUs were recruited and completed the initial questionnaire, and 109 (56%) patients completed 3-month follow-up. Median age was 65 years (IQR 57-72) and 49% (95/194) were female. Screening tool is depicted in Figure 1. Overall, the screening tool weakly-to-moderately correlated with continuous outcomes of the validated measures upon ICU discharge and 3-month follow-up. When evaluating sensitivity and specificity for individual domains, the tool had an area under the receiver operating curve of >0.7 for the following domains: cognitive, anxiety, and physical impairments, indicating moderate-to-good sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: This PICS screening tool was correlated with validated measures of PICS upon ICU discharge and at 3-month follow-up for all three domains. The tool's strength lies in its concise nature, making it easier for those caring for this patient population to screen for long-term effects of an ICU stay. Our proposed next step is validation of the PICS screening tool in an external cohort.

To identify medical phrases utilized by the critical care team that may have an unintended impact on the critically ill patient, we administered an anonymous survey to multi-professional critical care team members. We elicited examples of imprecise language that may have a negative emotional impact on the critically ill. Of the 1600 providers surveyed, 265 offered 1379 examples (912 unique) which were clustered into 5 categories. Medical jargon (eg, “riding the vent”) was most prevalent (n = 549). There were 217 negative suggestions (eg, “you will feel a stick and a burn”). Hyperboles (eg, “black cloud”) were common (n = 198) while homonyms (ie “he fibbed”) accounted for 150 examples. Phrases such as “code brown in there” were categorized as metonyms (n = 144). 121 metaphors/similes (eg, “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic”) were provided. Phrases that have the potential to negatively impact critically ill patient perceptions are commonplace in critical care practice. Whether these everyday communication habits lead to an unintended nocebo effect on mental health outcomes of the critically ill deserves further study.

Background: Surviving critical illness often creates a lasting psychological impact, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. Memories of frightening and delusional experiences are the largest potentially modifiable risk factor, but currently, there is no proven intervention to improve these inciting factors. Psychological support based on positive suggestion is a psychotherapeutic approach that can be provided even to patients in altered cognitive states and is therefore a viable psychotherapy intervention throughout the ICU stay. Traditional ICU care team members have limited time and training to provide such psychological support to patients. Doulas are trained supportive companions who have been effectively used to provide patient advocacy and emotional support in other clinical settings and may address this need. Our aim was to train and implement a psychological support based on positive suggestion program for the critically ill using doulas, and measure acceptance of this intervention through stakeholder feedback. Methods: Doula training included three objectives: an introduction to ICU practice structure and policies; education about fundamental aspects of critical care conditions and procedures; and didactic and hands-on learning experiences in effective use of psychological support based on positive suggestion in the critically ill. Doulas were evaluated at the end of their training and during subsequent clinical activities using competency-based assessments as well as through survey-based questions and interviews with key stakeholders. Results: The ICU doulas performed psychological support based on positive suggestion on 43 critically ill patients in the ICU setting. Stakeholder feedback from nurses, patients, and patient families was positive. The majority (28/32) of surveyed bedside ICU nurses reported that the doulas’ involvement was helpful for both patients and nurses alike. All interviewed family members offered positive comments about the ICU doula presence and of the 40 patients who recalled the intervention 37 found it comforting. Conclusions: Our program successfully trained two doulas to work effectively in the ICU setting performing patient-centered psychological support based on positive suggestion interventions. Their training improved their skill sets and was reported as beneficial by patients, families, and critical care nursing. This training program offers a proof of concept that could be applied in other medical centers, bringing doulas more commonly into the ICU practice to help humanize the experience for patients, families, and medical teams.