A longitudinal qualitative exploration of healthcare and informal support needs among survivors of critical illness: the RELINQUISH protocol.

Introduction and background: Survival following critical illness is associated with a significant burden of physical, emotional and psychosocial morbidity. Recovery can be protracted and incomplete, with important and sustained effects upon everyday life, including family life, social participation and return to work. In stark contrast with other critically ill patient groups (eg, those following cardiothoracic surgery), there are comparatively few interventional studies of rehabilitation among the general intensive care unit patient population. This paper outlines the protocol for a sub study of the RECOVER study: a randomised controlled trial evaluating a complex intervention of enhanced ward-based rehabilitation for patients following discharge from intensive care. Methods and analysis: The RELINQUISH study is a nested longitudinal, qualitative study of family support and perceived healthcare needs among RECOVER participants at key stages of the recovery process and at up to 1 year following hospital discharge. Its central premise is that recovery is a dynamic process wherein patients’ needs evolve over time. RELINQUISH is novel in that we will incorporate two parallel strategies into our data analysis: (1) a pragmatic health services-oriented approach, using an a priori analytical construct, the ‘Timing it Right’ framework and (2) a constructivist grounded theory approach which allows the emergence of new themes and theoretical understandings from the data. We will subsequently use Qualitative Health Needs Assessment methodology to inform the development of timely and responsive healthcare interventions throughout the recovery process. Ethics and dissemination: The protocol has been approved by the Lothian Research Ethics Committee (protocol number HSRU011). The study has been added to the UK Clinical Research Network Database (study ID. 9986). The authors will disseminate the findings in peer reviewed publications and to relevant critical care stakeholder groups.

Health-related quality of life: implications for critical care interventional studies and why we need to collaborate with patients.

Purpose of review: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important patient-reported outcome measure following critical illness. ‘Validated’ and professionally endorsed generic measures are widely used to evaluate critical care intervention and guide practice, policy and research. Although recognizing that they are ‘here to stay’, leading QoL researchers are beginning to question their ‘fitness for purpose’. It is therefore timely to review critiques of their limitations in the wider healthcare and social science literatures and to examine the implications for critical care research including, in particular, emerging interventional studies in which HRQoL is the primary outcome of interest. Recent findings: Generic HRQoL measures have provided important yet limited insights into HRQoL among survivors of critical illness. They are rarely developed or validated in collaboration with patients and cannot therefore be assumed to reflect their experiences and perspectives. Summary: Collaboration with patients is advocated in order to improve the interpretation and utility of such data. Failure to do so may result in important study effects being overlooked and the dismissal of potentially useful interventions.

Intensive care survivors’ experiences of ward-based care: Meleis’ theory of nursing transitions and role development among critical care outreach services.

Aims and objectives. To explore the psychosocial needs of patients discharged from intensive care, the extent to which they are captured using existing theory on transitions in care and the potential role development of critical care outreach, follow-up and liaison services. Background. Intensive care patients are at an increased risk of adverse events, deterioration or death following ward transfer. Nurse-led critical care outreach, follow-up or liaison services have been adopted internationally to prevent these potentially avoidable sequelae. The need to provide patients with psychosocial support during the transition to ward-based care has also been identified, but the evidence base for role development is currently limited. Design and methods. Twenty participants were invited to discuss their experiences of ward-based care as part of a broader study on recovery following prolonged critical illness. Psychosocial distress was a prominent feature of their accounts, prompting secondary data analysis using Meleis et al.’s mid-range theory on experiencing transitions. Results. Participants described a sense of disconnection in relation to profound debilitation and dependency and were often distressed by a perceived lack of understanding, indifference or insensitivity among ward staff to their basic care needs. Negotiating the transition between dependence and independence was identified as a significant source of distress following ward transfer. Participants varied in the extent to which they were able to express their needs and negotiate recovery within professionally mediated boundaries. Conclusion. These data provide new insights into the putative origins of the psychosocial distress that patients experience following ward transfer. Relevance to clinical practice. Meleis et al.’s work has resonance in terms of explicating intensive care patients’ experiences of psychosocial distress throughout the transition to general ward–based care, such that the future role development of critical care outreach, follow-up and liaison services may be more theoretically informed.

A rehabilitation intervention to promote physical recovery following intensive care: a detailed description of construct development, rationale and content together with proposed taxonomy to capture processes in a randomised controlled trial.

Background: increasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, but survival may be associated with a constellation of physical and psychological sequelae that can cause on going disability and reduced health-related quality of life. Limited evidence currently exists to guide the optimum structure, timing, and content of rehabilitation programmes. There is a need to both develop and evaluate interventions to support and expedite recovery during the post-ICU discharge period. This paper describes the construct development for a complex rehabilitation intervention intended to promote physical recovery following critical illness. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial (ISRCTN09412438; funder Chief Scientists Office, Scotland). Methods: the intervention was developed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex healthcare interventions. We ensured representation from a wide variety of stakeholders including content experts from multiple specialties, methodologists, and patient representation. The intervention construct was initially based on literature review, local observational and audit work, qualitative studies with ICU survivors, and brainstorming activities. Iterative refinement was aided by the publication of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline (No. 83), publicly available patient stories (Healthtalkonline), a stakeholder event in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, and local piloting. Modelling and further work involved a feasibility trial and development of a novel generic rehabilitation assistant (GRA) role. Several rounds of external peer review during successive funding applications also contributed to development. Results: the final construct for the complex intervention involved a dedicated GRA trained to pre-defined competencies across multiple rehabilitation domains (physiotherapy, dietetics, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy), with specific training in post-critical illness issues. The intervention was from ICU discharge to 3 months post-discharge, including inpatient and post-hospital discharge elements. Clear strategies to provide information to patients/families were included. A detailed taxonomy was developed to define and describe the processes undertaken, and capture them during the trial. The detailed process measure description, together with a range of patient, health service, and economic outcomes were successfully mapped on to the modified CONSORT recommendations for reporting non-pharmacologic trial interventions. Conclusions: the MRC complex intervention framework was an effective guide to developing a novel post-ICU rehabilitation intervention. Combining a clearly defined new healthcare role with a detailed taxonomy of process and activity enabled the intervention to be clearly described for the purpose of trial delivery and reporting. These data will be useful when interpreting the results of the randomised trial, will increase internal and external trial validity, and help others implement the intervention if the intervention proves clinically and cost effective.

A randomised controlled trial evaluating a rehabilitation complex intervention for patients following intensive care discharge: the RECOVER study.

Introduction: Patients who survive an intensive care unit admission frequently suffer physical and psychological morbidity for many months after discharge. Current rehabilitation pathways are often fragmented and little is known about the optimum method of promoting recovery. Many patients suffer reduced quality of life. Methods and analysis: The authors plan a multicentre randomised parallel group complex intervention trial with concealment of group allocation from outcome assessors. Patients who required more than 48 h of mechanical ventilation and are deemed fit for intensive care unit discharge will be eligible. Patients with primary neurological diagnoses will be excluded. Participants will be randomised into one of the two groups: the intervention group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the NHS service with additional treatment by a specifically trained generic rehabilitation assistant during ward stay and via telephone contact after hospital discharge and the control group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the current NHS service. The intervention group will also receive additional information about their critical illness and access to a critical care physician. The total duration of the intervention will be from randomisation to 3 months postrandomisation. The total duration of follow-up will be 12 months from randomisation for both groups. The primary outcome will be the Rivermead Mobility Index at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will include measures of physical and psychological morbidity and function, quality of life and survival over a 12-month period. A health economic evaluation will also be undertaken. Groups will be compared in relation to primary and secondary outcomes; quantitative analyses will be supplemented by focus groups with patients, carers and healthcare workers. Ethics and dissemination: Consent will be obtained from patients and relatives according to patient capacity. Data will be analysed according to a predefined analysis plan.

Increased hospital-based physical rehabilitation and information provision after intensive care unit discharge: the RECOVER randomized clinical trial.

Importance: critical illness results in disability and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but the optimum timing and components of rehabilitation are uncertain. Objective: to evaluate the effect of increasing physical and nutritional rehabilitation plus information delivered during the post–intensive care unit (ICU) acute hospital stay by dedicated rehabilitation assistants on subsequent mobility, HRQOL, and prevalent disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: a parallel group, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment at 2 hospitals in Edinburgh, Scotland, of 240 patients discharged from the ICU between December 1, 2010, and January 31, 2013, who required at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Analysis for the primary outcome and other 3-month outcomes was performed between June and August 2013; for the 6- and 12-month outcomes and the health economic evaluation, between March and April 2014. Interventions: during the post-ICU hospital stay, both groups received physiotherapy and dietetic, occupational, and speech/language therapy, but patients in the intervention group received rehabilitation that typically increased the frequency of mobility and exercise therapies 2- to 3-fold, increased dietetic assessment and treatment, used individualized goal setting, and provided greater illness-specific information. Intervention group therapy was coordinated and delivered by a dedicated rehabilitation practitioner. Main Outcomes and Measures: the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) (range 0-15) at 3 months; higher scores indicate greater mobility. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, psychological outcomes, self-reported symptoms, patient experience, and cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up (completed in February 2014). Results: median RMI at randomization was 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6) and at 3 months was 13 (IQR, 10-14) for the intervention and usual care groups (mean difference, −0.2 [95% CI, −1.3 to 0.9; P = .71]). The HRQOL scores were unchanged by the intervention (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, −0.1 [95% CI, −3.3 to 3.1; P = .96]; and in the Mental Component Summary score, 0.2 [95% CI, −3.4 to 3.8; P = .91]). No differences were found for self-reported symptoms of fatigue, pain, appetite, joint stiffness, or breathlessness. Levels of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress were similar, as were hand grip strength and the timed Up & Go test. No differences were found at the 6- or 12-month follow-up for any outcome measures. However, patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with physiotherapy, nutritional support, coordination of care, and information provision. Conclusions and Relevance: post-ICU hospital-based rehabilitation, including increased physical and nutritional therapy plus information provision, did not improve physical recovery or HRQOL, but improved patient satisfaction with many aspects of recovery.

Responsiveness of the frontal EMG for monitoring the sedation state of critically ill patients.

Background. Excessive sedation is associated with adverse patient outcomes during critical illness, and a validated monitoring technology could improve care. We developed a novel method, the responsiveness index (RI) of the frontal EMG. We compared RI data with Ramsay clinical sedation assessments in general and cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods. We developed the algorithm by iterative analysis of detailed observational data in 30 medical–surgical ICU patients and described its performance in this cohort and 15 patients recovering from scheduled cardiac surgery. Continuous EMG data were collected via frontal electrodes and RI data compared with modified Ramsay sedation state assessments recorded regularly by a blinded trained observer. RI performance was compared with EntropyTM across Ramsay categories to assess validity. Results. RI correlated well with the Ramsay category, especially for the cardiac surgery cohort (general ICU patients r¼0.55; cardiac surgery patients r¼0.85, both P,0.0001). Discrimination across all Ramsay categories was reasonable in the general ICU patient cohort [PK¼0.74 (SEM 0.02)] and excellent in the cardiac surgery cohort [PK¼0.92 (0.02)]. Discrimination between ‘lighter’ vs ‘deeper’ (Ramsay 1–3 vs 4–6) was good for general ICU patients [PK¼0.80 (0.02)] and excellent for cardiac surgery patients [PK¼0.96 (0.02)]. Performance was significantly better than EntropyTM. Examination of individual cases suggested good face validity. Conclusions. RI of the frontal EMG has promise as a continuous sedation state monitor in critically ill patients. Further investigation to determine its utility in ICU decision-making is warranted.

Design thinking - a critical analysis.

The latest buzz phrase to enter the world of design research is “Design Thinking”. But is this anything new and does it really have any practical or theoretical relevance to the design world? Many sceptics believe the term has more to do with business strategy and little to do with the complex process of designing products, services and systems. Moreover, many view the term as misleading and a cheap attempt to piggyback the world of business management onto design. This paper seeks to ask is design thinking anything new? Several authors have explicitly or implicitly articulated the term “Design Thinking” before, such as Peter Rowe’s seminal book “Design Thinking” [1] first published in 1987 and Herbert Simon’s “The Sciences of the Artificial” [2] first published in 1969. In Tim Brown’s “Change by Design” [3], design thinking is thought of as a system of three overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps namely inspiration – the problem or opportunity that motivates the search for solutions; ideation – the process of generating, developing and testing ideas; and implementation – the path that leads from the design studio, lab and factory to the market. This paper seeks to examine and critically analyse the tenets of this new design thinking manifesto set against three case studies of modern design practice. As such, the paper will compare design thinking theory with the reality of design in practice.

Development of process control methodology for tracking the quality and safety of pain, agitation and sedation management in critical care units

Objective: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. Design: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. Setting: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. Patients: Mechanically ventilated patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman [rho] = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; [kappa] = 0.66) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.58) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.29) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. Conclusions: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time

Understanding nurses’ decision-making when managing weaning from mechanical ventilation: a study of novice and experienced critical care nurses in Scotland and Greece.

Aim and objectives To examine how nurses collect and use cues from respiratory assessment to inform their decisions as they wean patients from ventilatory support. Background Prompt and accurate identification of the patient's ability to sustain reduction of ventilatory support has the potential to increase the likelihood of successful weaning. Nurses' information processing during the weaning from mechanical ventilation has not been well-described. Design A descriptive ethnographic study exploring critical care nurses' decision-making processes when weaning mechanically ventilated patients from ventilatory support in the real setting. Methods Novice and expert Scottish and Greek nurses from two tertiary intensive care units were observed in real practice of weaning mechanical ventilation and were invited to participate in reflective interviews near the end of their shift. Data were analysed thematically using concept maps based on information processing theory. Ethics approval and informed consent were obtained. Results Scottish and Greek critical care nurses acquired patient-centred objective physiological and subjective information from respiratory assessment and previous knowledge of the patient, which they clustered around seven concepts descriptive of the patient's ability to wean. Less experienced nurses required more encounters of cues to attain the concepts with certainty. Subjective criteria were intuitively derived from previous knowledge of patients' responses to changes of ventilatory support. All nurses used focusing decision-making strategies to select and group cues in order to categorise information with certainty and reduce the mental strain of the decision task. Conclusions Nurses used patient-centred information to make a judgment about the patients' ability to wean. Decision-making strategies that involve categorisation of patient-centred information can be taught in bespoke educational programmes for mechanical ventilation and weaning. Relevance to clinical practice Advanced clinical reasoning skills and accurate detection of cues in respiratory assessment by critical care nurses will ensure optimum patient management in weaning mechanical ventilation