Do simple ventilation and gas exchange measurements predict early successful weaning from respiratory support in unselected general intensive care patients?

Background. The value of respiratory variables as weaning predictors in the intensive care unit (ICU) is controversial. We evaluated the ability of tidal volume (Vtexp), respiratory rate ( f ), minute volume (MVexp), rapid shallow breathing index ( f/Vt), inspired–expired oxygen concentration difference [(I–E)O2], and end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration (PE′CO2) at the end of a weaning trial to predict early weaning outcomes. Methods. Seventy-three patients who required .24 h of mechanical ventilation were studied. A controlled pressure support weaning trial was undertaken until 5 cm H2O continuous positive airway pressure or predefined criteria were reached. The ability of data from the last 5 min of the trial to predict whether a predefined endpoint indicating discontinuation of ventilator support within the next 24 h was evaluated. Results. Pre-test probability for achieving the outcome was 44% in the cohort (n¼32). Non-achievers were older, had higher APACHE II and organ failure scores before the trial, and higher baseline arterial H+ concentrations. The Vt, MV, f, and f/Vt had no predictive power using a range of cut-off values or from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The [I–E]O2 and PE′CO2 had weak discriminatory power [areaunder the ROC curve: [I–E]O2 0.64 (P¼0.03); PE′CO2 0.63 (P¼0.05)]. Using best cut-off values for [I–E]O2 of 5.6% and PE′CO2 of 5.1 kPa, positive and negative likelihood ratios were 2 and 0.5, respectively, which only changed the pre- to post-test probability by about 20%. Conclusions. In unselected ICU patients, respiratory variables predict early weaning from mechanical ventilation poorly.

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.

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.

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.