Karnatovskaia, Lioudmila

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.

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.