Post-intensive care syndrome following cardiothoracic critical care: Feasibility of a complex intervention.
Philip Henderson, Tara Quasim, Annette Asher and 14 others
PMID 33856038WHAT IT FOUND
Implementing a complex post-ICU rehabilitation programme was feasible and safe, with high completion rates.
Patients and caregivers experienced significant physical, emotional, and social challenges, including anxiety and sleep problems, that persisted for months after discharge.
Key findings
01The intervention was feasible and safe, with a 96% completion rate among attendees and no reported harm.
02Caregivers experienced high levels of anxiety and sleep problems, with caregiver anxiety exceeding that of patients at baseline.
03A pharmacist review identified medication-related problems in 56% of patients, mostly related to cardiovascular drugs and transitions of care.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a quality improvement project, not a randomised controlled trial, so it cannot determine if the programme caused the observed improvements. The study was conducted in a single centre with a specific team, so the results may not be transferable to other settings. There was no comparison group, and pre-critical illness mental health status was not assessed, so it is unclear if the symptoms reported were new or pre-existing. Uptake was low (24%), and those who did not attend may have had different needs or outcomes.
Declared interests
The study was funded by The Health Foundation, a charitable organisation. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the manuscript. One author is supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the improvements in quality of life scores as evidence that the intervention works. This was a feasibility study without a control group, so natural recovery or other factors could explain the changes. The primary finding is that such a complex programme can be delivered safely.