Patient and Family Engagement in Critical Illness

Two-year prospective cohort of intensive care survivors enrolled on a digitally enabled recovery pathway focussed on individualised recovery goal attainment

BACKGROUND

Despite substantial evidence documenting physical, psychological, and cognitive problems experienced by intensive care unit (ICU) survivors, few studies explore interventions supporting recovery after hospital discharge. Individualised recovery goal setting, the standard of care across many rehabilitation areas, is rarely used for ICU survivors. Digital health technologies may help to address current service fragmentation and gaps. We developed and implemented a digital ICU recovery pathway using the aTouchaway e-health platform.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to explore recovery barriers and challenges; recovery goals set and achieved; self-reported patient outcomes; and healthcare costs of patients enrolled on a 12-week digital ICU recovery pathway after hospital discharge.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational single-centre cohort study (June 2021 to May 2023) at a 90-bed tertiary critical care service in London, UK. We enrolled adults ventilated for ≥3 days who were able to participate in recovery activities. We ascertained baseline recovery challenges and identified recovery goals and achievement over 12 weeks. We collected patient-reported outcomes at 2-4, 12-14, 26-28 weeks and healthcare utilisation monthly for 28 weeks.

RESULTS

We enrolled 105 participants (35% of eligible patients). Common rehabilitation challenges were standing balance (60%), walking indoors (56%), and washing (64%) and dressing (47%) abilities. Of 522 home recovery goals, 63% weekly, 48% monthly, and 38% aspirational goals were achieved. Most goals related to self-care: ability to move outside (91 goals, 55% achieved) and inside (45 goals, 47% achieved) the home and community access (65 goals, 48% achieved). Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale scores improved from timepoints 1 to 2 (median [interquartile range]: 15 [7, 19] versus 19 [15, 21], P = 0.01). Total healthcare costs were £240,017 (median [interquartile range] cost per patient: £784 [£125, £4419]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found multiple ongoing functional deficits, challenges achieving recovery goals, and limited improvements in self-reported outcomes, with moderate healthcare costs after hospital discharge indicate substantial ongoing rehabilitative needs.

Healthcare professionals perspective of the facilitators and barriers to family engagement during patient-and-family-centered-care interdisciplinary rounds in intensive care unit: A qualitative exploratory study

OBJECTIVES

Family engagement in care for critically ill patients remains an inconsistent practice and an understudied area of nursing science. Rounds for this study is an interdisciplinary activity conducted at the bedside in partnership with patients, their families, and the health care professionals involved in providing the care. We sought to explore and describe the facilitators and barriers to family engagement during patient and family-centered interdisciplinary rounds in the intensive care unit.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN

This qualitative exploratory study is part of a multisite experimental study (#Pro2020001614; NCT05449990). We analyzed the narrative data from the qualitative questions added in the survey from 52 healthcare professionals involved in a multisite experimental study using Braun and Clarke's (2006) constructionist, contextualist approach to thematic analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted in the intensive care unit of two medical centers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The findings presented are themes illuminated from thematic analysis namely communication gaps, family's lack of resources, familial and healthcare providers' characteristics, lack of leadership, interprofessional support, policy, and guidelines.

FINDINGS

Family engagement in critical care during interdisciplinary rounds occurred within the intersectionality among families, healthcare professionals' practice, and organizational factors. The facilitators for family engagement include supported, championed, and advocated-for family adaptation, teams, and professional practice, and organizational receptivity, and support. Communication and leadership are the precursors to family engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings added new knowledge for exploring the nature and scope of family engagement in critical care. Family engagement must be incorporated into the organizational vision and mission, and healthcare delivery systems.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

There is a need to further investigate the resources, organizational support mechanisms, and systems that affect patients, families, and healthcare professionals, and the establishment of policies that will aid in reducing barriers to family engagement in the intensive care unit.

Family-centered interventions and patient outcomes in the adult intensive care unit: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

There is a need to understand how family engagement in the intensive care unit (ICU) impacts patient outcomes. We reviewed the literature for randomized family-centered interventions with patient-related outcomes in the adult ICU.

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception until July 3, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the adult critical care setting evaluating family-centered interventions and reporting patient-related outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Author, publication year, setting, number of participants, intervention category, intervention, and patient-related outcomes (patient-reported, physiological, clinical) were extracted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There were 28 RCTs (12,174 participants) included. The most common intervention types were receiving care and meeting needs (N = 10) and family presence (N = 7). 16 RCTs (57%) reported ≥1 positive outcome from the intervention; no studies reported worse outcomes. Studies reported improvements in patient-reported outcomes such as anxiety, satisfaction, post-traumatic stress symptoms, depression, and health-related quality of life. RCTs reported improvements in physiological indices, adverse events, mechanical ventilation duration, analgesia use, ICU length of stay, delirium, and time to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly two-thirds of RCTs evaluating family-centered interventions in the adult ICU reported positive patient-related outcomes.

KEYPOINTS

Question: Do family-centered interventions improve patient outcomes in the adult intensive care unit (ICU)?

FINDINGS

The systematic review found that nearly two-thirds of randomized clinical trials of family-centered interventions in the adult ICU improved patient outcomes. Studies found improvements in patient mental health, care satisfaction, physiological indices, and clinical outcomes. There were no studies reporting worse patient outcomes. Meaning: Many family-centered interventions can improve patient outcomes.

Early mobility and family partnerships in the intensive care unit: A scoping review of reviews

BACKGROUND

Critical illness significantly impacts the well-being of patients and families. Previous studies show that family members are willing to participate in patient care. Involving families in early mobility interventions may contribute to improved recovery and positive outcomes for patients and families.

AIM

In this scoping review, we investigated early mobility interventions for critically ill patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials and the extent to which family engagement in those interventions are reported in the literature.

STUDY DESIGN

In this scoping review of reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane Central databases were searched in October 2019 and updated in February 2022. Systematic reviews were included and assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. Data were synthesized using a narrative approach. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were adhered to for reporting.

RESULTS

Thirty-three reviews were included which described a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients; none explicitly mentioned family engagement. Almost half of the reviews were of low or critically low quality. Insufficient detail of early mobility interventions prompted information to be extracted from the primary studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients but few involve families. Given the positive outcomes of family participation, and family willingness to participate in care, there is a need to explore the feasibility and acceptability of family participation in early mobility interventions.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Family engagement in early mobility interventions for critically ill patients should be encouraged and supported. How to best support family members and clinicians in enacting family involvement in early mobility requires further investigation.

Surgical Emergencies in Patients with Significant Comorbid Diseases

Emergency surgery in patients with significant comorbidities benefits from a structured approach to preoperative evaluation, intra-operative intervention, and postoperative management. Providing goal concordant care is ideal using shared decision-making. When operation cannot achieve the patient's goal, non-operative therapy including Comfort Care is appropriate. When surgical therapy is offered, preoperative physiology-improving interventions are far fewer than in other phases. Reevaluation of clinical care progress helps define trajectory and inform goals of care. Palliative Care Medicine may be critical in supporting loved ones during a patient's critical illness. Outcome evaluation defines successful strategies and outline opportunities for improvement.

Digital solutions and the future of recovery after critical illness

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Digital technologies may address known physical and psychological barriers to recovery experienced by intensive care survivors following hospital discharge and provide solutions to care fragmentation and unmet needs. The review highlights recent examples of digital technologies designed to support recovery of survivors of critically illness.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite proliferation of digital technologies supporting health in the community, there are relatively few examples for intensive care survivors. Those we identified included web-based, app-based or telemedicine-informed recovery clinics or pathways offering services, including informational resources, care planning and navigation support, medication reconciliation, and recovery goal setting. Digital interventions supporting psychological recovery included apps providing adaptive coping skills training, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioural therapy. Efficacy data are limited, although feasibility and acceptability have been established for some. Challenges include difficulties identifying participants most likely to benefit and delivery in a format easily accessible to all, with digital exclusion a resultant risk.

SUMMARY

Digital interventions supporting recovery comprise web or app-based recovery clinics or pathways and digital delivery of psychological interventions. Understanding of efficacy is relatively nascent, although several studies demonstrate feasibility and acceptability. Future research is needed but should be mindful of the risk of digital exclusion.

Use of the AGREE II instrument to evaluate critical care practice guidelines addressing pharmacotherapy

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been evaluated for reporting transparency and methodological quality in a number of studies in various disciplines, but few studies have focused on critical care and none on pharmacotherapy-related guidelines specifically. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of critical care CPGs with a focus on pharmacotherapy using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study of CPGs published from 2013 through August 2021 was conducted. Following establishment of interrater reliability, guidelines were independently evaluated by three reviewers to rate guidelines on criteria set forth by the AGREE II instrument. Domain scores and item scores were calculated using the AGREE II user manual, and results described with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Out of 192 guidelines identified, 73 met inclusion criteria and were screened using the AGREE II instrument. Most guidelines were authored by a professional organization or government agency. Domain quality scores were calculated for each domain as recommended by the AGREE II instrument. Domain 4 (clarity of presentation) had the highest AGREE II domain score with a median score of 87.0% (interquartile range: 79.6%-92.6%). Domain 5 (applicability) received the lowest domain score with a mean score of 41.8 ± 21.1%. The majority of guidelines were recommended for use as published or with modifications, while only six guidelines (8.2%) were not recommended for use.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of critical care guidelines that include pharmacotherapy recommendations were recommended for use by study authors when the AGREE II instrument was applied. While guidelines generally scored highly in clarity of presentation, additional time and effort should focus on providing solutions to guideline implementation and inclusion of patient preferences.