Citations

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: 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.

Objectives: To understand from the perspective of patients who did, and did not attend ICU recovery programs, what were the most important components of successful programs and how should they be organized. Design: International, qualitative study. Setting: Fourteen hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Patients: We conducted 66 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of patients, 52 of whom had used an ICU recovery program and 14 whom had not. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Using content analysis, prevalent themes were documented to understand what improved their outcomes. Contrasting quotes from patients who had not received certain aspects of care were used to identify perceived differential effectiveness. Successful ICU recovery programs had five key components: 1) Continuity of care; 2) Improving symptom status; 3) Normalization and expectation management; 4) Internal and external validation of progress; and 5) Reducing feelings of guilt and helplessness. The delivery of care which achieved these goals was facilitated by early involvement (even before hospital discharge), direct involvement of ICU staff, and a focus on integration across traditional disease, symptom, and social welfare needs. Conclusions: In this multicenter study, conducted across three continents, patients identified specific and reproducible modes of benefit derived from ICU recovery programs, which could be the target of future intervention refinement.

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.

Objectives: Patients and caregivers can experience a range of physical, psychologic, and cognitive problems following critical care discharge. The use of peer support has been proposed as an innovative support mechanism. Design: We sought to identify technical, safety, and procedural aspects of existing operational models of peer support, among the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive Peer Support Collaborative. We also sought to categorize key distinctions between these models and elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementation. Subjects and Setting: Seventeen Thrive sites from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were represented by a range of healthcare professionals. Measurements and Main Results: Via an iterative process of in-person and email/conference calls, members of the Collaborative defined the key areas on which peer support models could be defined and compared, collected detailed self-reports from all sites, reviewed the information, and identified clusters of models. Barriers and challenges to implementation of peer support models were also documented. Within the Thrive Collaborative, six general models of peer support were identified: community based, psychologist-led outpatient, models-based within ICU follow-up clinics, online, groups based within ICU, and peer mentor models. The most common barriers to implementation were recruitment to groups, personnel input and training, sustainability and funding, risk management, and measuring success. Conclusions: A number of different models of peer support are currently being developed to help patients and families recover and grow in the postcritical care setting.