Factors and health-related quality of life associated with participation in a post-ICU follow-up. A register study.
follow-up
health-related quality of life
intensive care
nurse-led clinic
nursing
register
study
Journal
Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1399-6576
Titre abrégé: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370270
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
revised:
09
01
2021
received:
26
05
2020
accepted:
10
02
2021
pubmed:
3
3
2021
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
2
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Follow-up for heterogeneous intensive care patients presents challenges for rehabilitation interventions and outcome measurements. The aim was to describe and explore characteristics and determinants for visiting/not visiting a nurse-led clinic (NLC) at different time-points, and to describe physical and mental health (HRQoL) over time. Patients with a length of stay (LOS) of ≥72 hours, discharged from a general intensive care unit 2004-2014, who participated in a 6-month follow-up programme offering visits to NLC at 2 and 6 months were included. The register study includes information regarding patients' participation in NLC, clinical and demographic data from the Patient Administrative System within Intensive care, and data on 2-, 6- and 12-month HRQoL by using SF-36 from the Swedish Intensive Care Registry. Of 656 patients, 57% visited the NLC on some occasion. These patients were younger (P = .000), had lower Simplified Acute Physiology scores (P = .001) and higher SF-36 physical health domain scores at 2 months (P < .05) compared to those not visiting at all. Visitors at 2 months only were younger, had shorter LOS and higher physical and mental domain scores than patients visiting at 6 months only. Patients visiting the NLC scored significantly higher in all domains from 2 to 12 months, whereas non-visiting-patients' did this in four out of eight domains during the same time frame. Individual patient's characteristics and current health conditions seem to influence visits to NLC or not. The findings may contribute to the development of existing routines to match the diversity of patients' needs and life situations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Follow-up for heterogeneous intensive care patients presents challenges for rehabilitation interventions and outcome measurements. The aim was to describe and explore characteristics and determinants for visiting/not visiting a nurse-led clinic (NLC) at different time-points, and to describe physical and mental health (HRQoL) over time.
METHODS
Patients with a length of stay (LOS) of ≥72 hours, discharged from a general intensive care unit 2004-2014, who participated in a 6-month follow-up programme offering visits to NLC at 2 and 6 months were included. The register study includes information regarding patients' participation in NLC, clinical and demographic data from the Patient Administrative System within Intensive care, and data on 2-, 6- and 12-month HRQoL by using SF-36 from the Swedish Intensive Care Registry.
RESULTS
Of 656 patients, 57% visited the NLC on some occasion. These patients were younger (P = .000), had lower Simplified Acute Physiology scores (P = .001) and higher SF-36 physical health domain scores at 2 months (P < .05) compared to those not visiting at all. Visitors at 2 months only were younger, had shorter LOS and higher physical and mental domain scores than patients visiting at 6 months only. Patients visiting the NLC scored significantly higher in all domains from 2 to 12 months, whereas non-visiting-patients' did this in four out of eight domains during the same time frame.
CONCLUSION
Individual patient's characteristics and current health conditions seem to influence visits to NLC or not. The findings may contribute to the development of existing routines to match the diversity of patients' needs and life situations.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
902-911Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Angus DC, Carlet J. Surviving intensive care: a report from the 2002 Brussels Roundtable. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:368-377.
Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, et al. Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: Report from a stakeholders’ conference. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:502-509.
Azoulay E, Vincent J-L, Angus DC, et al. Recovery after critical illness: putting the puzzle together - a consensus of 29. Crit Care. 2017;21:296.
Fernandes A, Schmitt Jaeger M, Chudow M. Post-intensive care syndrome: A review of preventive strategies and follow-up care. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2019;76:119-122.
Jones C, Bäckman C, Capuzzo M, et al. the RACHEL group. Intensive care diaries reduce new onset posttraumatic stress disorder following critical illness: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care. 2010;14(R168).
Schandl A, Bottai M, Hellgren E, Sundin Ö, Sackey P. Gender differences in psychological morbidity and treatment in intensive care survivors - a cohort study. Crit Care. 2012;16:R80.
Glimelius Petersson C, Bergbom I, Brodersen K, Ringdal M. Patients´ participation and evaluation of a follow-up program following intensive care. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011;55:827-834.
Cuthbertson BH, Rattray J, Campbell MK, et al. The PRaCTICaL study of nurse-led, intensive care follow-up programmes for improving long-term outcomes from critical illness: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;339:b3723.
Jónasdóttir RJ, Jones C, Sigurdsson GH, Jónsdóttir H. Structured nurse-led follow-up for patients after discharge from the intensive care unit: Prospective quasi-experimental study. J Adv Nurs. 2017;00:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13485
Jensen JF, Egeröd I, Bestle MH, et al. A recovery program to improve quality of life, sense of coherence and psychological health in ICU survivors: a multicenter randomized controlled trial, the RAPIT study. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1733-1743.
Mehlhorn J, Freytag A, Schmidt K, et al. Rehabilitation interventions for postintensive care syndrome: A systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:1263-1271.
Jensen JF, Thomsen T, Overgaard D, Bestle MH, Christensen D, Egeröd I. Impact of follow-up consultations for ICU survivors on post-ICU syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:763-775.
Schofield-Robinson OJ, Lewis SR, Smith AF, McPeake J, Alderson P. Follow-up services for improving long-term outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors (Review). Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. 2018;11:CD012701.
Orwelius L, Fredrikson M, Kristenson M, Walther S, Sjöberg F. Health-related quality of life scores after intensive care are almost equal to those of the normal population: a multicenter observational study. Crit Care. 2013;17:R236.
Orwelius L, Nordlund A, Nordlund P, et al. Pre-existing disease: the most important factor for health-related quality of life long-term after critical illness: a prospective, longitudinal, multicentre trial. Crit Care. 2010;14:R67.
Gerth AMJ, Hatch MA, Young JD, Watkinson PJ. Changes in health-related quality of life after discharge from an intensive care unit: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2019;74:100-108.
Aitken LM, Marshall AP. Monitoring and optimising outcomes of survivors of critical illness. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2015;31:1-9.
Rosa RG, Ferreira GE, Viola TW, et al. Effects of post-ICU follow-up on subject outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care. 2019;52:115-125.
http://www.icuregswe.org PostIVA uppföljning. Accessed March 26, 2020
http://portal.icuregswe.org/utdata/ 2008-2014 Accessed March 26, 2020.
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13:818-829.
Metnitz PGH, Moreno RP, Almeida E, et al. Le Gall J-R on the behalf of the SAPS 3 investigators. SAPS 3 - from evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 1: objectives, methods and cohort description. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:1336-1344.
Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE, Draper EA. Variations in mortality and length of stay in Intensive Care Units. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:753-761.
Moreno RP, Metnitz PGH, Almeida E, et al. Le Gall J-R on behalf of the SAPS 3 investigators. SAPS 3 - from evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2: Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:1345-1355.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE Jr. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. So Sci Med. 1995;41:1349-1358.
Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Taft C. SF-36 health survey: Swedish manual and interpretation guide (2nd edn). Gothenburg: Sahlgrenska University Hospital; 2002.
Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: The bare essentials. Shelton, CT: Pmph USA Ltd; 2014.
Samuelson KAM, Corrigan I. A nurse-led intensive care after-care programme - development, experiences and preliminary validation. Nurs Crit Care. 2009;14:254-263.
Schandl AR, Brattström OR, Svensson-Raskh A, Hellgren EM, Falkenhav MD, Sackey PV. Screening and treatment of problems after intensive care: A descriptive study of multidisciplinary follow-up. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2011;27(2):94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2011.01.006
Vogel G, Forinder U, Sandgren A, Svensen C, Joelsson-Alm E. Health-related quality of life after surgical intensive care. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018;62:1112-1119.
van der Schaaf M, Bakhshi-Raiez F, van der Steen M, Dongelmans DA, de Keizer NF. Recommendations for intensive care follow-up clinics; report from a survey and conference of Dutch intensive cares. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015;81:135-144.
Myer J, Brett SJ, Waldmann C. Should ICU clinicians follow patients after ICU discharge? Yes. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(9):1539-1541 (editorial).
http://portal.icuregswe.org/utdata/ 2019 Accessed March 26, 2020
King J, O’Neill B, Ramsay P, et al. Identifying patients´ support needs following critical illness: a scoping review of the qualitative literature. Crit Care. 2019;23(187).
Rosa RG, Kochhann R, Berto P, et al. More than the tip of the iceberg: association between disabilities and inability to attend a clinic-based post-ICU follow-up and how it may impact on health inequalities. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:1352-1354.
Eriksson T, Bergbom I, Lindahl B. The experiences of patients and their families of visiting whilst in an intensive care unit - A hermeneutic interview study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2011;27:60-66.
van den Born-van Zanten SA, Dongelmans DA, Dettling-Ihnenfeldt D, Vink R, van der Schaaf M. Caregiver strain and posttraumatic stress symptoms of informal caregivers of intensive care unit survivors. Rehabil Psychol. 2016;61:173-178.
Jensen JF, Overgaard D, Bestle MH, Christensen DF, Egerod I. Towards a new orientation: a longitudinal study of an intensive care recovery programme. J Clin Nurs. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13372
Corner EJ, Murray E. Qualitative, grounded theory exploration of patients´ experience of early mobilisation, rehabilitation and recovery after critical illness. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e026348. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026348
Lim WC, Black N, Lamping D, Rowan K, Mays N. Conceptualizing and measuring health-related quality of life in critical care. J Crit Care. 2016;31:183-193.