Search

Purpose: Few quality improvement tools specific to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness exist to aid delivery of high-quality care. Using experience-based co-design methods, we sought consensus from key stakeholders on the most important actionable processes of care for inclusion in a quality improvement checklist., Methods: Item generation methods: systematic review, semi-structured interviews (ICU survivors and family) members, touchpoint video creation, and semi-structured interviews (ICU clinicians). Consensus methods: modified online Delphi and a virtual meeting using nominal group technique methods., Results: We enrolled 138 ICU interprofessional team, patients, and family members. We obtained consensus on a quality improvement checklist comprising 11 core domains: patient and family involvement in decision-making; patient communication; physical comfort and complication prevention; promoting self-care and normalcy; ventilator weaning; physical therapy; swallowing; pharmacotherapy; psychological issues; delirium; and appropriate referrals. An additional 27 actionable processes are contained within 6 core domains that provide more specific direction on the actionable process to be targeted., Conclusions: Using a highly collaborative and methodologically rigorous process, we generated a quality improvement checklist of actionable processes to improve patient and family-centred care considered important by key stakeholders. Future research is needed to understand optimal implementation strategies and impact on outcomes and experience., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no declarations of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To identify barriers and facilitators for the use of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and voice restorative strategies for adult patients with an advanced airway in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Materials and Methods: Scoping review searching five databases between 1990 and 2019. We screened 13, 167 citations and included all study types reporting barriers and/or facilitators to using communication strategies in an ICU setting. Two authors independently extracted and coded reported barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) domains., Results: Of the 44 studies meeting inclusion criteria 18 (44%) used qualitative, 18 (44%) used quantitative, and 8 (18%) used mixed methods. In total, 39 unique barriers and 46 unique facilitators were identified and coded to the domains of the TDF. Barriers were most frequently coded to the Skills, Environmental Context and Resources, and Emotion domains. Facilitators were most frequently coded to Reinforcement, Environmental Context and Resources, and Social and Professional Roles/Identity domains. Thematic synthesis produced four potentially modifiable factors: context, emotional support, training, and decisional algorithms., Conclusions: Identified barriers (skills, environment, resources, emotions) and facilitators (reinforcement, resources, roles) to ICU communication strategy use in the literature may be modified through formal training and role support., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no competing interests other than authorship of an included study (Rose et al., 2018)., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Mechanically ventilated patients experience pain at rest and during daily care procedures. Our objective was to test the reliability and validity of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) to detect oral-pharyngeal pain in intubated and tracheostomised adults during routine oral care procedures., Materials and Methods: Two trained research team members independently observed patients during two non-painful (rest and gentle touch) and three potentially painful (oral suctioning, tooth brushing, and swabbing with a sponge toothette) procedures. Conscious patients were asked if they experienced pain during each procedure (yes/no) and to rate their pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale., Results: A total of 98 patients, primarily intubated (92.9%) and male (63.3%) participated. Criterion validation was supported by patient self-report of pain during tooth brushing (AUC=.80; P<0.5) and oral suction (AUC=.72; P<0.3) but not for oral swabbing (AUC=.68; P=0.16). Discriminative validation was demonstrated for all oral care procedures compared to rest (P<.001). Intra-class correlation coefficients between raters ranged from .78 to .91 (P<.001) for total CPOT scores, indicating excellent inter-rater reliability., Conclusions: The CPOT is reliable and valid for the detection of oral-pharyngeal pain during oral care procedures indicated as painful by critically ill adults., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)