Search

OBJECTIVES: To understand the unmet needs of caregivers of ICU survivors, how they accessed support post ICU, and the key components of beneficial ICU recovery support systems as identified from a caregiver perspective. DESIGN: International, qualitative study. SUBJECTS: We conducted 20 semistructured interviews with a diverse group of caregivers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, 11 of whom had interacted with an ICU recovery program. SETTING: Seven hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Content analysis was used to explore prevalent themes related to unmet needs, as well as perceived strategies to improve ICU outcomes. Post-ICU care was perceived to be generally inadequate. Desired caregiver support fell into two main categories: practical support and emotional support. Successful care delivery initiatives included structured programs, such as post discharge telephone calls, home health programs, post-ICU clinics, and peer support groups, and standing information resources, such as written educational materials and online resources. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative, multicenter, international study of caregivers of critical illness survivors identified consistently unmet needs, means by which caregivers accessed support post ICU, and several care mechanisms identified by caregivers as supporting optimal ICU recovery.

UNLABELLED: To understand from the perspective of patients who did, and did not attend ICU recovery programs, what were the most important components of successful programs and how should they be organized. DESIGN: International, qualitative study. SETTING: Fourteen hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. PATIENTS: We conducted 66 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of patients, 52 of whom had used an ICU recovery program and 14 whom had not. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using content analysis, prevalent themes were documented to understand what improved their outcomes. Contrasting quotes from patients who had not received certain aspects of care were used to identify perceived differential effectiveness. Successful ICU recovery programs had five key components: 1) Continuity of care; 2) Improving symptom status; 3) Normalization and expectation management; 4) Internal and external validation of progress; and 5) Reducing feelings of guilt and helplessness. The delivery of care which achieved these goals was facilitated by early involvement (even before hospital discharge), direct involvement of ICU staff, and a focus on integration across traditional disease, symptom, and social welfare needs. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, conducted across three continents, patients identified specific and reproducible modes of benefit derived from ICU recovery programs, which could be the target of future intervention refinement.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the key mechanisms that clinicians perceive improve care in the intensive care unit (ICU), as a result of their involvement in post-ICU programs. METHODS: Qualitative inquiry via focus groups and interviews with members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's THRIVE collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support). Framework analysis was used to synthesize and interpret the data. RESULTS: Five key mechanisms were identified as drivers of improvement back into the ICU: (1) identifying otherwise unseen targets for ICU quality improvement or education programs-new ideas for quality improvement were generated and greater attention paid to detail in clinical care. (2) Creating a new role for survivors in the ICU-former patients and family members adopted an advocacy or peer volunteer role. (3) Inviting critical care providers to the post-ICU program to educate, sensitize, and motivate them-clinician peers and trainees were invited to attend as a helpful learning strategy to gain insights into post-ICU care requirements. (4) Changing clinician's own understanding of patient experience-there appeared to be a direct individual benefit from working in post-ICU programs. (5) Improving morale and meaningfulness of ICU work-this was achieved by closing the feedback loop to ICU clinicians regarding patient and family outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The follow-up of patients and families in post-ICU care settings is perceived to improve care within the ICU via five key mechanisms. Further research is required in this novel area.