Literature DB >> 35314485

Evaluation of a health and social care programme to improve outcomes following critical illness: a multicentre study.

Philip Henderson1, Tara Quasim2,3, Martin Shaw2,4, Pamela MacTavish3, Helen Devine3, Malcolm Daniel3, Fiona Nicolson3, Peter O'Brien5, Ashley Weir5, Laura Strachan6, Lorraine Senior7, Phil Lucie8, Lynn Bollan9, Jane Duffty10, Lucy Hogg11, Colette Ross11, Malcolm Sim6, Radha Sundaram12, Theodore J Iwashyna13,14, Joanne McPeake2,3.   

Abstract

RATIONALE: At present, clinicians aiming to support patients through the challenges after critical care have limited evidence to base interventions.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate a multicentre integrated health and social care intervention for critical care survivors. A process evaluation assessed factors influencing the programme implementation.
METHODS: This study evaluated the impact of the Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment (InS:PIRE) programme. We compared patients who attended this programme with a usual care cohort from the same time period across nine hospital sites in Scotland. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured via the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level instrument, at 12 months post hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy, depression, anxiety and pain.
RESULTS: 137 patients who received the InS:PIRE intervention completed outcome measures at 12 months. In the usual care cohort, 115 patients completed the measures. The two cohorts had similar baseline demographics. After adjustment, there was a significant absolute increase in HRQoL in the intervention cohort in relation to the usual care cohort (0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.20, p=0.01). Patients in the InS:PIRE cohort also reported self-efficacy scores that were 7.7% higher (2.32 points higher, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.31, p=0.02), fewer symptoms of depression (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.76, p=0.01) and similar symptoms of anxiety (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13, p=0.11). There was no significant difference in overall pain experience. Key facilitators for implementation were: integration with inpatient care, organisational engagement, flexibility to service inclusion; key barriers were: funding, staff availability and venue availability.
CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre evaluation of a health and social care programme designed for survivors of critical illness appears to show benefit at 12 months following hospital discharge. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ARDS; critical care; pulmonary rehabilitation

Year:  2022        PMID: 35314485     DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-218428

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorax        ISSN: 0040-6376            Impact factor:   9.139


  3 in total

1.  A multicentre evaluation exploring the impact of an integrated health and social care intervention for the caregivers of ICU survivors.

Authors:  Joanne McPeake; Philip Henderson; Pamela MacTavish; Helen Devine; Malcolm Daniel; Phil Lucie; Lynn Bollan; Lucy Hogg; Mike MacMahon; Sharon Mulhern; Pauline Murray; Laura O'Neill; Laura Strachan; Theodore J Iwashyna; Martin Shaw; Tara Quasim
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 19.334

2.  The Prevalence of Spiritual and Social Support Needs and Their Association With Postintensive Care Syndrome Symptoms Among Critical Illness Survivors Seen in a Post-ICU Follow-Up Clinic.

Authors:  Tammy L Eaton; Leslie P Scheunemann; Brad W Butcher; Heidi S Donovan; Sheila Alexander; Theodore J Iwashyna
Journal:  Crit Care Explor       Date:  2022-04-08

3.  Interviews with primary care physicians identify unmet transition needs after ICU.

Authors:  Katrina E Hauschildt; Rachel K Hechtman; Hallie C Prescott; Leigh M Cagino; Theodore J Iwashyna
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 19.334

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.