Dimopoulos S, Leggett NE, Deane AM, Haines KJ, Abdelhamid YA. Models of intensive care unit follow-up care and feasibility of intervention delivery: A systematic review.
Aust Crit Care 2024;
37:508-516. [PMID:
37263902 DOI:
10.1016/j.aucc.2023.04.005]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2023] [Revised: 04/23/2023] [Accepted: 04/24/2023] [Indexed: 06/03/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The optimal model of outpatient intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up care remains uncertain, and there is limited evidence of benefit.
RESEARCH QUESTION
The objective of this research is to describe existing models of outpatient ICU follow-up care, quantify participant recruitment and retention, and describe facilitators of patient engagement.
STUDY DESIGN & METHODS
A systematic search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was undertaken in June 2021. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts against eligibility criteria. Studies of adults with any outpatient ICU follow-up were included. Studies were excluded if published before 1990, not published in English, or of paediatric patients. Quantitative data were extracted using predefined data fields. Key themes were extracted from qualitative studies. Risk of bias was assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 531 studies were screened. Forty-seven studies (32 quantitative and 15 qualitative studies) with a total of 5998 participants were included. Of 33 quantitative study interventions, the most frequently reported model of care was in-person hospital-based interventions (n = 27), with 10 hybrid (part in-hospital, part remote) interventions. Literature was limited for interventions without hospital attendance (n = 6), including telehealth and diaries. The median ranges of rates of recruitment, rates of intervention delivery, and retention to outcome assessment for hospital-based interventions were 51.5% [24-94%], 61.9% [8-100%], and 52% [8.1-82%], respectively. Rates were higher for interventions without hospital attendance: 82.6% [60-100%], 68.5% [59-89%], and 75% [54-100%]. Facilitators of engagement included patient-perceived value of follow-up, continuity of care, intervention accessibility and flexibility, and follow-up design. Studies had a moderate risk of bias.
INTERPRETATION
Models of post-ICU care without in-person attendance at the index hospital potentially have higher rates of recruitment, intervention delivery success, and increased participant retention when compared to hospital-based interventions.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021260279.
Collapse