Quality of life 9 years after an intensive care unit stay: A long-term outcome study

The purpose of the study was to assess long-term mortality after an intensive care unit (ICU) stay and to test the hypotheses that (1) quality of life improves over time and (2) predictions of outcome made by caregivers during an ICU stay are reliable.

Long-term consequences of an intensive care unit stay in older critically ill patients: design of a longitudinal study

Background Modern methods in intensive care medicine often enable the survival of older critically ill patients. The short-term outcomes for patients treated in intensive care units (ICUs), such as survival to hospital discharge, are well documented. However, relatively little is known about subsequent long-term outcomes. Pain, anxiety and agitation are important stress factors for many critically ill patients. There are very few studies concerned with pain, anxiety and agitation and the consequences in older critically ill patients. The overall aim of this study is to identify how an ICU stay influences an older person's experiences later in life. More specific, this study has the following objectives: (1) to explore the relationship between pain, anxiety and agitation during ICU stays and experiences of the same symptoms in later life; and (2) to explore the associations between pain, anxiety and agitation experienced during ICU stays and their effect on subsequent health-related quality of life, use of the health care system (readmissions, doctor visits, rehabilitation, medication use), living situation, and survival after discharge and at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. Methods/Design A prospective, longitudinal study will be used for this study. A total of 150 older critically ill patients in the ICU will participate (ICU group). Pain, anxiety, agitation, morbidity, mortality, use of the health care system, and health-related quality of life will be measured at 3 intervals after a baseline assessment. Baseline measurements will be taken 48 hours after ICU admission and one week thereafter. Follow-up measurements will take place 6 months and 12 months after discharge from the ICU. To be able to interpret trends in scores on outcome variables in the ICU group, a comparison group of 150 participants, matched by age and gender, recruited from the Swiss population, will be interviewed at the same intervals as the ICU group. Discussion Little research has focused on long term consequences after ICU admission in older critically ill patients. The present study is specifically focussing on long term consequences of stress factors experienced during ICU admission.

[Experiences of patients and family members during the stay on a nursing unit]

In 2004, the university hospital of Berne ran a pilot project with a Nursing Unit (NU). In this unit patients who no longer needed a close surveillance by physicians were cared for. They needed primarily complex professional nursing care which could not be provided by other hospitals, nursing homes, home care or family members. The nurses were responsible for the coordination of care. This qualitative study investigated experiences of patients and family members with the care concept of the NU. Thematically focused interviews were conducted with nine patients and five family members. Qualitative content analysis was used for data analysis. Results show that patients and family members mostly accepted the new care concept. They positively experienced the quiet and restful atmosphere, the patient-centred and continuous care by competent nurses, the education and the discharge planning. Some study participants reported missing information at the time of their transfer to the NU, insufficient assessments or unsuitable educational scripts. The study provides evidence to positive effects of a patient-centred care approach.

Stratification of cumulative antibiograms in hospitals for hospital unit, specimen type, isolate sequence and duration of hospital stay

BACKGROUND: Empirical antibiotic therapy is based on patients' characteristics and antimicrobial susceptibility data. Hospital-wide cumulative antibiograms may not sufficiently support informed decision-making for optimal treatment of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We studied different approaches to analysing antimicrobial susceptibility rates (SRs) of all diagnostic bacterial isolates collected from patients hospitalized between July 2005 and June 2007 at the University Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland. We compared stratification for unit-specific, specimen type-specific (blood, urinary, respiratory versus all specimens) and isolate sequence-specific (first, follow-up versus all isolates) data with hospital-wide cumulative antibiograms, and studied changes of mean SR during the course of hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 16 281 isolates (7965 first, 1201 follow-up and 7115 repeat isolates) were tested. We found relevant differences in SRs across different hospital departments. Mean SRs of Escherichia coli to ciprofloxacin ranged between 64.5% and 95.1% in various departments, and mean SRs of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to imipenem and meropenem ranged from 54.2% to 100% and 80.4% to 100%, respectively. Compared with hospital cumulative antibiograms, lower SRs were observed in intensive care unit specimens, follow-up isolates and isolates causing nosocomial infections (except for Staphylococcus aureus). Decreasing SRs were observed in first isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci with increasing interval between hospital admission and specimen collection. Isolates from different anatomical sites showed variations in SRs. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the reporting of unit-specific rather than hospital-wide cumulative antibiograms. Decreasing antimicrobial susceptibility during hospitalization and variations in SRs in isolates from different anatomical sites should be taken into account when selecting empirical antibiotic treatment.