Fragmentation of care between intensive and primary care settings and opportunities for improvement

Clinician- and Patient-Identified Solutions to Reduce the Fragmentation of Post-ICU Care in Australia

BACKGROUND

Critical care survivors experience multiple care transitions, with no formal follow-up care pathway.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the potential solutions to improve the communication between treating teams and integration of care following an ICU admission, from the perspective of patients, their caregivers, intensivists, and general practitioners (GPs) from diverse socioeconomic areas?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This study included a qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with intensivists, GPs, and patients and caregivers. Framework analysis was used to analyze data and to identify solutions to improve the integration of care following hospital discharge. Patients were previously mechanically ventilated for > 24 h in the ICU and had access to a video-enabled device. Clinicians were recruited from hospital networks and a state-wide GP network.

RESULTS

Forty-six interviews with clinicians, patients, and caregivers were completed (15 intensivists, eight GPs, 15 patients, and eight caregivers). Three higher level feedback loops were identified that comprised 10 themes. Feedback loop 1 was an ICU and primary care collaboration. It included the following: (1) developing collaborative relationships between the ICU and primary care; (2) providing interprofessional education and resources to support primary care; and (3) improving role clarity for patient follow-up care. Feedback loop 2 was developing mechanisms for improved communication across the care continuum. It included: (4) timely, concise information-sharing with primary care on post-ICU recovery; (5) survivorship-focused information-sharing across the continuum of care; (6) empowering patients and caregivers in self-management; and (7) creation of a care coordinator role for survivors. Feedback loop 3 was learning from post-ICU outcomes to improve future care. It included: (8) developing comprehensive post-ICU care pathways; (9) enhancing support for patients following a hospital stay; and (10) integration of post-ICU outcomes within the ICU to improve clinician morale and understanding.

INTERPRETATION

Practical solutions to enhance the quality of survivorship for critical care survivors and their caregivers were identified. These themes are mapped to a novel conceptual model that includes key feedback loops for health system improvements and foci for future interventional trials to improve ICU survivorship outcomes.

Does the level of mobility on ICU discharge impact post-ICU outcomes? A retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

Mobilisation is a common intervention in Intensive Care (ICU). However, few studies have explored the relationship between mobility levels and outcomes. This study assessed the association of the level of mobility on ICU discharge with discharge destination from the hospital and hospital length of stay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from 522 patients admitted to a single UK general ICU who were ventilated for ≥5 days was performed. The level of mobility was assessed using the Manchester Mobility Score (MMS). Multivariable regression analysed demographic and clinical variables for the independence of association with discharge destination and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

MMS ≥5 on ICU discharge was independently associated with discharge destination and hospital LOS (p < 0.001). Patients achieving MMS ≥5 on ICU discharge were more likely to be discharged home (OR 3.86 95% CI 2.1 to 6.9, p < 0.001), and had an 11.8 day shorter hospital LOS (95% CI -17.6 to -6.1, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The ability to step transfer to a chair (MMS ≥5) before ICU discharge was independently associated with discharge to usual residence and hospital LOS, irrespective of preadmission morbidity. Increasing the level of patient mobility at ICU discharge should be a key focus of rehabilitation interventions.

Do critical illness survivors with multimorbidity need a different model of care?

There is currently a lack of evidence on the optimal strategy to support patient recovery after critical illness. Previous research has largely focussed on rehabilitation interventions which aimed to address physical, psychological, and cognitive functional sequelae, the majority of which have failed to demonstrate benefit for the selected outcomes in clinical trials. It is increasingly recognised that a person's existing health status, and in particular multimorbidity (usually defined as two or more medical conditions) and frailty, are strongly associated with their long-term outcomes after critical illness. Recent evidence indicates the existence of a distinct subgroup of critical illness survivors with multimorbidity and high healthcare utilisation, whose prior health trajectory is a better predictor of long-term outcomes than the severity of their acute illness. This review examines the complex relationships between multimorbidity and patient outcomes after critical illness, which are likely mediated by a range of factors including the number, severity, and modifiability of a person's medical conditions, as well as related factors including treatment burden, functional status, healthcare delivery, and social support. We explore potential strategies to optimise patient recovery after critical illness in the presence of multimorbidity. A comprehensive and individualized approach is likely necessary including close coordination among healthcare providers, medication reconciliation and management, and addressing the physical, psychological, and social aspects of recovery. Providing patient-centred care that proactively identifies critical illness survivors with multimorbidity and accounts for their unique challenges and needs is likely crucial to facilitate recovery and improve outcomes.