Translating Postsepsis Care to Post-COVID-19 Care. The Case for a Virtual Recovery Program

Health system approaches to providing posthospital care for survivors of sepsis and critical illness

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the current review, we highlight developing strategies taken by healthcare systems to improve posthospital outcomes for sepsis and critical illness.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies conducted in the adult population over the last 18 months have advanced current knowledge on postdischarge care after sepsis and critical illness. Effective interventions are complex and multicomponent, targeting the multilevel challenges that survivors face. Health systems can leverage existing care models such as primary care or invest in specialty programs to deliver postdischarge care. Qualitative and implementation science studies provide insights into important contextual factors for program success. Several studies demonstrate successful application of telehealth to improve reach of postdischarge support. Research is beginning to identify subtypes of survivors that may respond to tailored intervention strategies.

SUMMARY

Several successful critical illness survivor models of care have been implemented and knowledge about effectiveness, cost, and implementation factors of these strategies is growing. Further innovation is needed in intervention development and evaluation to advance the field.

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.

Passing the SNF Test: A Secondary Analysis of a Sepsis Transition Intervention Trial Among Patients Discharged to Post-Acute Care

OBJECTIVES

Sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care facilities experience high rates of mortality and hospital readmission. This study compared the effects of a Sepsis Transition and Recovery (STAR) program vs usual care (UC) on 30-day mortality and hospital readmission among sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a multisite pragmatic randomized clinical trial.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of patients from the IMPACTS (Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis) randomized clinical trial who were discharged to post-acute care. IMPACTS evaluated the effectiveness of STAR, a nurse-navigator-led program to deliver best practice post-sepsis care. Subjects were randomized to receive either STAR or UC. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission and mortality. We also evaluated hospital-free days alive as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Of 691 patients enrolled in IMPACTS, 175 (25%) were discharged to post-acute care [143 (82%) to skilled nursing facilities, 12 (7%) to long-term acute care hospitals, and 20 (11%) to inpatient rehabilitation]. Of these, 87 received UC and 88 received the STAR intervention. The composite 30-day all-cause mortality and readmission endpoint occurred in 26 (29.9%) patients in the UC group vs 18 (20.5%) in the STAR group [risk difference -9.4% (95% CI -22.2 to 3.4); adjusted odds ratio 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.17)]. Separately, 30-day all-cause mortality was 8.1% in the UC group compared with 5.7% in the STAR group [risk difference -2.4% (95% CI -9.9 to 5.1)] and 30-day all-cause readmission was 26.4% in the UC group compared with 17.1% in the STAR program [risk difference -9.4% (95% CI -21.5 to 2.8)].

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

There are few proven interventions to reduce readmission among patients discharged to post-acute care facilities. These results suggest the STAR program may reduce 30-day mortality and readmission rates among sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care facilities.

Outcomes Associated With Rural Emergency Department Provider-to-Provider Telehealth for Sepsis Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that provider-to-provider tele-emergency department care is associated with more 28-day hospital-free days and improved Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline adherence in rural emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

Multicenter (n=23), propensity-matched, cohort study using medical records of patients with sepsis from rural hospitals in an established, on-demand, rural video tele-ED network in the upper Midwest between August 2016 and June 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day hospital-free days, with secondary outcomes of 28-day inhospital mortality and SSC guideline adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 1,191 patients were included in the analysis, with tele-ED used for 326 (27%). Tele-ED cases were more likely to be transferred to another hospital (88% versus 8%, difference 79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 75% to 83%). After matching and regression adjustment, tele-ED cases did not have more 28-day hospital-free days (difference 0.07 days more for tele-ED, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.17) or 28-day inhospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.60). Adherence with both the SSC 3-hour bundle (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.22) and complete bundle (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.60) were similar. An a priori-defined subgroup of patients treated by advanced practice providers suggested that the mortality was lower in the cohort with tele-ED use (aOR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.73) despite no significant difference in complete SSC bundle adherence (aOR 2.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 15.86).

CONCLUSION

Rural emergency department patients treated with provider-to-provider tele-ED care in a mature network appear to have similar clinical outcomes to those treated without.