Search

Background: In the intensive care unit (ICU), delirium in patients and long‐term mental health challenges in both patients and their family members are highly prevalent. To address these issues, patient‐ and family‐centered care has been recommended to alleviate the burdens associated with critical illness and ICU admission. We have developed the patient‐ and FAMily‐centered care in the adult ICU intervention (FAM–ICU intervention). This multi‐component intervention comprises several concrete and manageable components and operationalizing patient‐ and family‐centered care principles in clinical practice. In this protocol, we describe a study aiming to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the FAM–ICU intervention in the adult ICU setting, including the feasibility of collecting relevant patient‐ and family‐member outcome data. Method: We will conduct a pre‐/post two‐group study design. We plan to recruit 30 adult ICU patients and their close family members at Herlev University Hospital in Denmark. The pre‐group (n = 15) will receive usual care and the post‐group (n = 15) will receive the FAM–ICU intervention. The FAM–ICU intervention involves interdisciplinary training of the ICU team and a systematic approach to information sharing and consultations with the patients and their family. Feasibility outcomes will include recruitment and retention rates, intervention fidelity, and the feasibility of participant outcome data collection. Acceptability will be assessed through questionnaires and interviews with clinicians, patients, and family members. Data collection is scheduled to begin in January 2025. Discussion: This study will assess the feasibility and acceptability when implementing the FAM–ICU intervention and the feasibility of conducting a main trial to investigate its effectiveness on delirium in patients and the mental health of patients and family members. The data from the feasibility study will be used to guide sample size calculations, trial design, and final data collection methods for a subsequent stepped‐wedge randomized controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are at high risk of post-operative complications. Although post-operative treatment at an intermediate care unit may improve early outcome, there is a lack of studies on the long-term effects of such therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term effect of intermediate care versus standard surgical ward care on mortality in the Intermediate Care After Emergency Abdominal Surgery (InCare) trial.Methods: We included adult patients undergoing emergency major laparoscopy or laparotomy with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 10 or more, who participated in the InCare trial from October 2010 to November 2012. In the InCare trial, patients were randomized to either post-operative intermediate care or standard surgical ward care. The primary outcome was time to death within 6 years after surgery. We assessed mortality with Coxregression analysis.Results: A total of 286 patients were included. The all-cause 6-year landmark mortality was 52.8% (76 of 144 patients) in the intermediate care group and 47.9% (68 of 142 patients) in the ward care group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality risk between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.76-1.47), P = .73).Conclusion: We found no statistically significant difference in 6-year mortality between patients randomized to post-operative intermediate care or ward care after emergency abdominal surgery. However, we detected an absolute mortality risk reduction of 5% in favour of ward care, possibly due to random error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]