A protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of an Early Psychiatric Assessment, Referral, and Intervention Study (EPARIS) for intensive care patients.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
21
09
2022
accepted:
02
06
2023
medline:
3
7
2023
pubmed:
29
6
2023
entrez:
29
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Up to 80% of Intensive Care Unit patients experience physical, cognitive, and/or psychological complications post-discharge, known as 'Post Intensive Care Syndrome' (PICS). Early diagnosis and intervention are a priority, but while current post-intensive care follow-up processes endorse a multidisciplinary model, incorporating a psychiatric consultation has not been studied. A pilot, open-label randomised controlled trial was developed by a multidisciplinary team to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating a psychiatric review into an existing post-ICU clinic. The study will run for 12 months and aim to recruit 30 participants. Inclusion criteria for participants: a) ICU admission greater than 48 hours, b) no cognitive impairment that prevents participation, c) ≥ 18 years old, d) residing in Australia, e) fluent in English, f) able to provide GP information, and g) likely to be contactable in 6 months. Patient recruitment will be at Redcliffe Hospital, Queensland, Australia, and will involve patients attending the Redcliffe post intensive care clinic. Participants will be allocated to intervention or control using block randomisation and allocation concealment. Participants allocated to the control arm will receive the standard cares provided by the clinic, which involves an unstructured interview about their ICU experience and a battery of surveys about their psychological, cognitive, and physical function. Those allocated to the intervention arm will receive these same cares as well as an appointment with a psychiatrist for a single session intervention. The psychiatric intervention will involve a comprehensive review, including comorbid disorders, substance use, suicidal ideation, psychosocial stressors, social/emotional supports. Psychoeducation and initial treatment will be provided as indicated and recommendations given to the patient and their GP about how to access ongoing care. In addition to surveys conducted as part of standard clinic cares, all participants will complete additional questionnaires about their history, hospital experience, mental and physical health as well as employment circumstances. All participants will be followed up 6 months after their appointment and will be invited to complete follow-up questionnaires about their mental and physical health, as well as health service use and employment circumstances. The trial has been registered with ANZCTR (ACTRN12622000894796). To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to the patient population. Differences between groups will be assessed using an independent samples t-test. Resource requirements to administer the intervention will be evaluated by reporting the mean duration of the EPARIS assessment and approximate cost per patient to provide this service. To estimate the effect size of any treatment effects, changes in secondary outcome measures between baseline and 6 months will be compared between intervention and control groups using Analysis of Covariance regression. As this is a pilot, we will not use p-values or test a null hypothesis, but will give confidence intervals. This protocol provides a pragmatic evaluation of the acceptability of introducing early psychiatric assessment into an existing post-ICU follow-up process, and if considered acceptable will inform future research into the efficacy and generalisability of the intervention. The strengths of EPARIS are the prospective, longitudinal design with a control population, and its use of validated post-ICU outcome measures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Up to 80% of Intensive Care Unit patients experience physical, cognitive, and/or psychological complications post-discharge, known as 'Post Intensive Care Syndrome' (PICS). Early diagnosis and intervention are a priority, but while current post-intensive care follow-up processes endorse a multidisciplinary model, incorporating a psychiatric consultation has not been studied.
METHODS
A pilot, open-label randomised controlled trial was developed by a multidisciplinary team to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating a psychiatric review into an existing post-ICU clinic. The study will run for 12 months and aim to recruit 30 participants. Inclusion criteria for participants: a) ICU admission greater than 48 hours, b) no cognitive impairment that prevents participation, c) ≥ 18 years old, d) residing in Australia, e) fluent in English, f) able to provide GP information, and g) likely to be contactable in 6 months. Patient recruitment will be at Redcliffe Hospital, Queensland, Australia, and will involve patients attending the Redcliffe post intensive care clinic. Participants will be allocated to intervention or control using block randomisation and allocation concealment. Participants allocated to the control arm will receive the standard cares provided by the clinic, which involves an unstructured interview about their ICU experience and a battery of surveys about their psychological, cognitive, and physical function. Those allocated to the intervention arm will receive these same cares as well as an appointment with a psychiatrist for a single session intervention. The psychiatric intervention will involve a comprehensive review, including comorbid disorders, substance use, suicidal ideation, psychosocial stressors, social/emotional supports. Psychoeducation and initial treatment will be provided as indicated and recommendations given to the patient and their GP about how to access ongoing care. In addition to surveys conducted as part of standard clinic cares, all participants will complete additional questionnaires about their history, hospital experience, mental and physical health as well as employment circumstances. All participants will be followed up 6 months after their appointment and will be invited to complete follow-up questionnaires about their mental and physical health, as well as health service use and employment circumstances. The trial has been registered with ANZCTR (ACTRN12622000894796).
RESULTS
To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to the patient population. Differences between groups will be assessed using an independent samples t-test. Resource requirements to administer the intervention will be evaluated by reporting the mean duration of the EPARIS assessment and approximate cost per patient to provide this service. To estimate the effect size of any treatment effects, changes in secondary outcome measures between baseline and 6 months will be compared between intervention and control groups using Analysis of Covariance regression. As this is a pilot, we will not use p-values or test a null hypothesis, but will give confidence intervals.
CONCLUSIONS
This protocol provides a pragmatic evaluation of the acceptability of introducing early psychiatric assessment into an existing post-ICU follow-up process, and if considered acceptable will inform future research into the efficacy and generalisability of the intervention. The strengths of EPARIS are the prospective, longitudinal design with a control population, and its use of validated post-ICU outcome measures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37384627
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287470
pii: PONE-D-22-25386
pmc: PMC10309621
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0287470Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Flaws et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2019 Dec 6;10(1):1695486
pubmed: 31853332
Crit Care. 2013 May 28;17(3):R100
pubmed: 23714692
Aust Crit Care. 2021 May;34(3):246-253
pubmed: 33214026
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014 Apr;14(2):221-33
pubmed: 24625040
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820
Crit Care. 2013 Apr 27;17(2):R81
pubmed: 23622086
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 3;369(14):1306-16
pubmed: 24088092
Am J Crit Care. 2002 Sep;11(5):459-66
pubmed: 12233971
Crit Care Med. 2012 Feb;40(2):502-9
pubmed: 21946660
Crit Care. 2018 Nov 23;22(1):310
pubmed: 30466485
J Crit Care. 2019 Aug;52:115-125
pubmed: 31035186
AACN Adv Crit Care. 2016 Apr-Jun;27(2):184-6
pubmed: 27153307
JAMA. 2018 Feb 6;319(5):483-494
pubmed: 29411037
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2016 Sep-Oct;42:32-5
pubmed: 27638969
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Dec;47(12):1450-1461
pubmed: 34495357
Expert Rev Neurother. 2021 Oct;21(10):1159-1177
pubmed: 34519235
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;26(2):212-221
pubmed: 28716375
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777