The post-ICU presentation screen (PICUPS) and rehabilitation prescription (RP) for intensive care survivors part I: Development and preliminary clinimetric evaluation.
COVID-19
Rehabilitation needs
intensive care
Journal
Journal of the Intensive Care Society
ISSN: 1751-1437
Titre abrégé: J Intensive Care Soc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101538668
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
entrez:
29
8
2022
pubmed:
30
8
2022
medline:
30
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients who have had prolonged stays in intensive care have ongoing rehabilitation needs. This is especially true of COVID-19 ICU patients, who can suffer diverse long-term ill effects. Currently there is no systematic data collection to guide the needs for therapy input for either of these groups nor to inform planning and development of rehabilitation services. These issues could be resolved in part by the systematic use of a clinical tool to support decision-making as patients progress from the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), through acute hospital care and onwards into rehabilitation. We describe (i) the development of such a tool (the Post-ICU Presentation Screen (PICUPS)) and (ii) the subsequent preparation of a person-centred Rehabilitation Prescription (RP) to travel with the patient as they continue down the care pathway. PICUPS development was led by a core group of experienced clinicians representing the various disciplines involved in post-ICU rehabilitation. Key constructs and item-level descriptors were identified by group consensus. Piloting was performed as part of wider clinical engagement in 26 acute hospitals across England. Development and validation of such a tool requires clinimetric analysis, and this was based on classical test theory. Teams also provided feedback about the feasibility and utility of the tool. Initial PICUPS design yielded a 24-item tool. In piloting, a total of 552 records were collated from 314 patients, of which 121 (38.5%) had COVID-19. No obvious floor or ceiling effects were apparent. Exploratory factor analysis provided evidence of uni-dimensionality with strong loading on the first principal component accounting for 51% of the variance and Cronbach's alpha for the full-scale score 0.95 - although a 3-factor solution accounted for a further 21%. The PICUPS was responsive to change both at full scale- and item-level. In general, positive responses were seen regarding the tool's ability to describe the patients during their clinical course, engage and flag the relevant professionals needed, and to inform what should be included in an RP. The PICUPS tool has robust scaling properties as a clinical measure and is potentially useful as a tool for identifying rehabilitation needs as patients step down from ICU and acute hospital care.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Patients who have had prolonged stays in intensive care have ongoing rehabilitation needs. This is especially true of COVID-19 ICU patients, who can suffer diverse long-term ill effects. Currently there is no systematic data collection to guide the needs for therapy input for either of these groups nor to inform planning and development of rehabilitation services. These issues could be resolved in part by the systematic use of a clinical tool to support decision-making as patients progress from the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), through acute hospital care and onwards into rehabilitation. We describe (i) the development of such a tool (the Post-ICU Presentation Screen (PICUPS)) and (ii) the subsequent preparation of a person-centred Rehabilitation Prescription (RP) to travel with the patient as they continue down the care pathway.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
PICUPS development was led by a core group of experienced clinicians representing the various disciplines involved in post-ICU rehabilitation. Key constructs and item-level descriptors were identified by group consensus. Piloting was performed as part of wider clinical engagement in 26 acute hospitals across England. Development and validation of such a tool requires clinimetric analysis, and this was based on classical test theory. Teams also provided feedback about the feasibility and utility of the tool.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Initial PICUPS design yielded a 24-item tool. In piloting, a total of 552 records were collated from 314 patients, of which 121 (38.5%) had COVID-19. No obvious floor or ceiling effects were apparent. Exploratory factor analysis provided evidence of uni-dimensionality with strong loading on the first principal component accounting for 51% of the variance and Cronbach's alpha for the full-scale score 0.95 - although a 3-factor solution accounted for a further 21%. The PICUPS was responsive to change both at full scale- and item-level. In general, positive responses were seen regarding the tool's ability to describe the patients during their clinical course, engage and flag the relevant professionals needed, and to inform what should be included in an RP.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The PICUPS tool has robust scaling properties as a clinical measure and is potentially useful as a tool for identifying rehabilitation needs as patients step down from ICU and acute hospital care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36033253
doi: 10.1177/1751143720988715
pii: 10.1177_1751143720988715
pmc: PMC9411778
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
253-263Informations de copyright
© The Intensive Care Society 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: LTS is a full time NHS employee but, as part of her NHS activities, she directs the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative (UKROC), She has a specific research interest in outcomes evaluation and, together with colleagues (including author RJS) she has published extensively on the development and use of standardised measures, and neither LTS or RJS has any personal financial interest in any of the material mentioned in this article. Several of the authors have clinical academic posts, and research/development publications of this kind may be used by their employing NHS or University organisation to contribute to departmental returns in evaluations such as the NHS R&D reports or the Research Excellence Framework. ZP has received honoraria for consultancy from GlaxoSmithKline, Lyric Pharmaceuticals, Faraday Pharmaceuticals and Fresenius-Kabi, and speaker fees from Orion, Baxter, Nutricia and Nestle.
Références
BMJ. 2020 Aug 11;370:m3026
pubmed: 32784198
J Med Virol. 2021 Feb;93(2):1013-1022
pubmed: 32729939
Crit Care Med. 2018 Sep;46(9):1393-1401
pubmed: 29787415
JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):603-605
pubmed: 32644129
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;7(7):611-627
pubmed: 32437679
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Sep 1;202(5):690-699
pubmed: 32667207
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(6):635-40
pubmed: 3597666
N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 20;348(8):683-93
pubmed: 12594312