Search

Purpose: There is a growing awareness on minimizing sedation in ICUs. In the NONSEDA trial 700 critically ill patients were randomized to light sedation or non-sedation during mechanical ventilation. Approximately 40% of patients randomized to non-sedation needed sedation. The aim of this study is to obtain knowledge on patients, who experienced failure of non-sedation., Materials and Methods: This study is a retrospective post-hoc analysis of the NONSEDA trial. Patients, who were randomized to non-sedation are sub-divided into those who did not require sedation during mechanical ventilation ("non-sedation success"), and those who needed continuous sedation at least once ("non-sedation failure")., Results: 348 patients were randomized to non-sedation, 199 experienced non-sedation success, whereas 149 experienced non-sedation failure. Patients in the two groups were comparable with regards to age, BMI, disease severity scores and admission diagnoses. Patients with non-sedation failure were more often male. Propofol was mainly used as rescue sedation. Patients with non-sedation failure had less days alive without sedation, coma, delirium, organ support, mechanical ventilation, ICU- and hospital admission. Mortality and long-term outcomes did not differ between groups., Conclusion: Patients with non-sedation success had better in-hospital outcomes, but mortality and long-term outcomes were not affected by success or failure of non-sedation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare that we have no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Critical illness impairs physical function. The NONSEDA trial was a multicenter randomized trial, assessing non-sedation versus sedation during mechanical ventilation. The aim of this sub-study was to assess the effect of non-sedation on physical function., Methods: All patients from one NONSEDA trial site were included. At ICU discharge and three months thereafter, survivors were assessed for physical function., Results: 205 patients were included, 118 survived to follow-up, 116 participated (98%)., Primary Outcome: Three months after ICU-discharge, health-related quality of life (SF-36, physical component score) was similar (non-sedated 38.3 vs sedated 36.6, mean difference 1.7, 95% CI -1.7 to 5.1), as was function in activities of daily living (Barthel Index, non-sedated 19.5 vs sedated 18, median difference 1.5, 95% CI -0.2 to 3.2)., Secondary Outcomes: Non-sedated patients had a better Barthel Index at ICU-discharge (median 9 vs 4, median difference 5, 95% CI 2.5 to 7.5). At three months post-ICU discharge, the two groups did not differ regarding handgrip strength, walking distance, muscle size or biomechanical data., Conclusion: Non-sedation did not lead to improved quality of life regarding physical function or better function in activities of everyday living. Non-sedated patients had a better physical recovery at ICU discharge., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.govNCT02034942, registered January 14., 2014., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare that we have no conflicts of interests. The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To examine heterogeneity of quality-of-care ratings within families and to examine possible predictors of concordance., Materials and Methods: We examined two aspects of agreement within families: response similarity and the amount of exact concordance in responses in a cohort of Danish ICU family members participating in a questionnaire survey (the European Quality Questionnaire: euroQ2)., Results: Two hundred seventy-four family respondents representing 122 patients were included in the study. Identical ratings between family members occurred in 28%-59% of families, depending upon the specific survey item. In a smaller sample of 28 families whose patients died, between 39% and 86% gave identical responses to items rating end-of-life care. There was more response variance within than between families, yielding low estimates of intrafamily correlation. Statistics correcting for chance agreement also suggested modest within-family agreement., Conclusions: The finding that variance is higher within than between families suggests the value of including multiple participants within a family in order to capture varying points of view., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purposes of the study were to provide richer context for families' quantitative assessments of the quality of ICU care, and to describe further quality areas of importance for family members., Materials and Methods: Free-text comments from 1077 family members of 920 patients focusing on family evaluation of ICU quality of care were analyzed using content analysis. Twenty-one Danish and Dutch ICUs participated from October 2014 to June 2015., Results: Four themes emerged as important to families: information, clinician skills, ICU environment, and discharge from the ICU. Families highlighted the importance of receiving information that was accessible, understandable and honest. They indicated that quality care was ensured by having clinicians who were both technically and interpersonally competent. The ICU environment and the circumstances of the transfer out of the ICU were described as contributing to quality of care. The comments identified room for improvement within all themes., Conclusions: The study highlights the importance of including both technical and emotional care for patients and families and the consequent need to focus on clinicians' mastery of interpersonal skills., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Knowledge of families' perspective of quality of intensive care unit (ICU) care is important, especially with regard to end-of-life (EOL) care. Adaptation of the US-developed "Quality of dying and death questionnaire" (QODD) to a European setting is lacking. The primary aim of this study is to examine the euroQODD's usability and its assessments of EOL care in a cohort of Danish and Dutch family members., Methods: Family members of patients dying in an ICU after a stay of at least 48h were sent the euroQODD three weeks after the patient died. Selected patient characteristics were obtained from hospital records. A total of 11 Danish and 10 Dutch ICU's participated., Results: 217 family members completed the euroQODD part of the euroQ2 questionnaire. Overall rating of care was high, a median of 9 in Netherlands and 10 in Denmark on a 0-10 scale (p<0.001). The Danish were more likely to report adequate pain control all or most of the time (95% vs 73%; p<0.001). When decisions were made to limit treatment, the majority of family members agreed (93%). Most (92%) reported some participation in the decision-making, with half (50%) making the decision jointly with the doctor. About 18% would have preferred greater involvement. Factor analysis identified a six-indicator unidimensional quality of dying and death construct with between-country measurement invariance. However, in its current form the euroQODD instrument requires modeling the six items as reflective (or effect) indicators, when they are more accurately conceived as causal indicators., Conclusions: The majority of family members were satisfied with the quality of EOL care and quality of dying and death. They agreed with decisions made to limit treatment and most felt they had participated to some extent in decision-making, although some would have preferred greater participation. Addition of items that can be accurately treated as effect indicators will improve the instrument's usefulness in measuring the overall quality of dying and death., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to adapt and provide preliminary validation for questionnaires evaluating families' experiences of quality of care for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Materials and Methods: This study took place in 2 European ICUs. Based on literature and qualitative interviews, we adapted 2 previously validated North American questionnaires: "Family Satisfaction with the ICU" and "Quality of Dying and Death." Family members were asked to assess relevance and understandability of each question. Validation also included test-retest reliability and construct validity., Results: A total of 110 family members participated. Response rate was 87%. For all questions, a median of 97% (94%-99%) was assessed as relevant, and a median of 98% (97%-100%), as understandable. Median ceiling effect was 41% (30%-47%). There was a median of 0% missing data (0%-1%). Test-retest reliability showed a median weighted κ of 0.69 (0.53-0.83). Validation showed significant correlation between total scores and key questions., Conclusions: The questions were assessed as relevant and understandable, providing high face and content validity. Ceiling effects were comparable to similar instruments; missing data, low; and test-retest reliability, acceptable. These measures are promising for use in research, but further validation is needed before they can be recommended for routine clinical use., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)