Search

In 2020, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, hospital intensive care units (ICUs) revised patient care practices, curtailed visiting, and augmented the use of personal protective equipment to protect patients, staff, and the community from viral transmission.The aim was to explore ICU staff experiences and perceptions of care and communication with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand how alternative ways of working have influenced work processes, relationships, and staff morale.This was a qualitative exploratory design study using audio-recorded and transcribed interviews with 20 ICU staff members. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.Four major themes were derived from the data: (i) Communication and connection, (ii) Psychological casualties, (iii) Caring for our patients, and (iv) Overcoming challenges. Patient care was affected by diminished numbers of critical care qualified staff, limited staff entry to isolation rooms, and needing to use alternative techniques for some practices. The importance of effective communication from the organisation and between clinicians, families, and staff members was emphasised. personal protective equipment hindered communication between patients and staff and inhibited nonverbal and verbal cues conveying empathy in therapeutic interactions. Communication with families by phone or videoconference was less satisfying than in-person encounters. Some staff members suffered psychological distress, especially those working with COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Moral injury occurred when staff members were required to deny family access to patients. Workload intensified with increased patient admissions, additional infection control requirements, and the need to communicate with families using alternative methods.The results of this study reflect the difficulties in communication during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Communication between staff members and families may be improved using a more structured approach. Staff reported experiencing psychological stress when separating families and patients or working in isolation rooms for prolonged periods. A flexible, compassionate response to family presence in the ICU is essential to maintain patient- and family-centred care.

BackgroundHospital clinicians report poor psychosocial well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few studies have reported data at more than one time point.AimsTo compare psychosocial well-being among hospital clinicians at two different time points during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.MethodsParticipants included doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health clinicians at a multi-site, public health service in Melbourne, Australia. Data were collected via two cross-sectional, online surveys: May to June (wave 1; n = 638) and October to December 2020 (wave 2; n = 358). The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) assessed psychological well-being in the past week. Investigator-devised questions assessed COVID-19 concerns and perceived work impacts. General linear models were used to assess impact of wave on psychological distress.ResultsThere were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. Both positive (e.g. learning experience) and negative (e.g. risk of getting COVID-19) impacts were reported. In both waves, staff were most concerned about health risks to family members. Wave 2 respondents were significantly more likely than wave 1 respondents to indicate concerns about colleagues having COVID-19, increased workloads, leave cancellation and increased conflict at work (all P < 0.001). Adjusting for sex, age, self-rated health and discipline group, depression, anxiety and stress scores were significantly higher for respondents in the second than the first wave (all P < 0.001).ConclusionsPsychological well-being of hospital clinicians was significantly worse during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic than the first. Sustained occupational and psychosocial support is recommended even when immediate COVID-19 concerns and impacts resolve. Background: Hospital clinicians report poor psychosocial well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few studies have reported data at more than one time point. Aims: To compare psychosocial well-being among hospital clinicians at two different time points during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Methods: Participants included doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health clinicians at a multi-site, public health service in Melbourne, Australia. Data were collected via two cross-sectional, online surveys: May to June (wave 1; n = 638) and October to December 2020 (wave 2; n = 358). The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) assessed psychological well-being in the past week. Investigator-devised questions assessed COVID-19 concerns and perceived work impacts. General linear models were used to assess impact of wave on psychological distress. Results: There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. Both positive (e.g. learning experience) and negative (e.g. risk of getting COVID-19) impacts were reported. In both waves, staff were most concerned about health risks to family members. Wave 2 respondents were significantly more likely than wave 1 respondents to indicate concerns about colleagues having COVID-19, increased workloads, leave cancellation and increased conflict at work (all P < 0.001). Adjusting for sex, age, self-rated health and discipline group, depression, anxiety and stress scores were significantly higher for respondents in the second than the first wave (all P < 0.001). Conclusions: Psychological well-being of hospital clinicians was significantly worse during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic than the first. Sustained occupational and psychosocial support is recommended even when immediate COVID-19 concerns and impacts resolve.

Objective This study investigated the short-term psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital clinical staff, specifically their self-reported concerns and perceived impact on their work and personal lives. Methods Nurses, midwives, doctors and allied health staff at a large metropolitan tertiary health service in Melbourne, Australia, completed an anonymous online cross-sectional survey between 15 May and 10 June 2020. The survey assessed respondents’ COVID-19 contact status, concerns related to COVID-19 and other effects of COVID-19. Space was provided for free-text comments. Results Respondents were mostly concerned about contracting COVID-19, infecting family members and caring for patients with COVID-19. Concerns about accessing and using personal protective equipment, redeployment and their ability to provide high-quality patient care during the pandemic were also reported. Pregnant staff expressed uncertainty about the possible impact of COVID-19 on their pregnancy. Despite their concerns, few staff had considered resigning, and positive aspects of the pandemic were also described. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has had a considerable impact on the work and personal lives of hospital clinical staff. Staff, particularly those who are pregnant, would benefit from targeted well-being and support initiatives that address their concerns and help them manage their work and personal lives. What is known about the topic? The COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact on healthcare workers’ psychological well-being. Little is known about their COVID-19-related concerns and the perceived impact of the pandemic on their work and personal lives, particularly hospital clinical staff during the ‘first wave’ of the pandemic in Australia. What does this paper add? This paper contributes to a small but emerging evidence base about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work and personal lives of hospital clinical staff. Most staff were concerned about their own health and the risk to their families, friends and colleagues. Despite their concerns, few had considered resigning. Uncertainty about the possible impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy was also reported. What are the implications for practitioners? During the current and future pandemics, staff, especially those who are pregnant, would benefit from targeted well-being and support initiatives that address their concerns and help them manage the impact on their health, work and personal lives.

Limited research assessed the validity of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence, ABC) Scale in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD) at risk of falls. We report on the scale's construct and criterion validity.Construct validity was established by assessing known groups, convergent, and divergent validity. A receiver operating characteristic, (ROC) curve and logistic regression examined the criterion validity of the scale.In 223 individuals with COPD, the ABC Scale significantly, (The ABC Scale showed evidence for known groups, convergent, and divergent validity and can assist in identifying fall status in individuals with COPD.

The COVID-19 pandemic will require health systems to test interventions to improve the recovery and social integration of adult survivors of COVID-19. Peer support is a complex intervention that allows COVID-19 survivors to give and receive practical and emotional support in relationship with other survivors of acute illness. The growing expertise within CAIRO can be leveraged by stakeholders interested in starting and sustaining a peer support program for COVID-19 survivors.

Background After critical illness, patients are often left with impairments in physical, social, emotional, and cognitive functioning. Peer support interventions have been implemented internationally to ameliorate these issues. Objective To explore what patients believed to be the key mechanisms of effectiveness of peer support programs implemented during critical care recovery. Methods In a secondary analysis of an international qualitative data set, 66 telephone interviews with patients were undertaken across 14 sites in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States to understand the effect of peer support during recovery from critical illness. Prevalent themes were documented with framework analysis. Results Most patients who had been involved in peer support programs reported benefit. Patients described 3 primary mechanisms: (1) sharing experiences, (2) care debriefing, and (3) altruism. Conclusion Peer support is a relatively simple intervention that could be implemented to support patients during recovery from critical illness. However, more research is required into how these programs can be implemented in a safe and sustainable way in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To engage critical care end-users (survivors and caregivers) to describe their emotions and experiences across their recovery trajectory, and elicit their ideas and solutions for health service improvements to improve the ICU recovery experience. DESIGN: End-user engagement as part of a qualitative design using the Framework Analysis method. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine’s THRIVE international collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support groups). SUBJECTS: Patients and caregivers following critical illness and identified through the collaboratives. INTERVENTIONS: Nil. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six interviews were conducted. The following themes were identified: 1. Emotions and experiences of patients – Loss of former self; Experiences of disability and adaptation; 2. Emotions and experiences of caregivers – Emotional impacts, adopting new roles, and caregiver burden; Influence of gender roles; Adaptation, adjustment, recalibration; and 3. Patient and caregiver-generated solutions to improve recovery across the arc of care - Family-targeted education; Expectation management; Rehabilitation for patients and caregivers; Peer support groups; Reconnecting with ICU post discharge; Access to community based supports post discharge; Psychological support; Education of issues of ICU survivorship for health professionals; Support across recovery trajectory. Themes were mapped to a previously published recovery framework (Timing it Right) that captures patient and caregiver experiences, and their support needs across the phases of care from the event/diagnosis to adaptation post-discharge home. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers reported a range of emotions and experiences across the recovery trajectory from ICU to home. Through end-user engagement strategies many potential solutions were identified that could be implemented by health services and tested to support the delivery of higher-quality care for ICU survivors and their caregivers that extend from tertiary to primary care settings.

Background Intensive care follow-up clinics (ICFCs) have been implemented internationally with the aim to address the growing number of patients living with sequalae of critical illness and intensive care. However, data on Australian intensive care follow-up practice are rare. Objectives The primary objective was to determine the proportion of Australian intensive care units (ICUs) that offer a dedicated ICFC to ICU survivors, with the intention of improving long-term outcomes of critical illness. Secondary objectives were to identify models of ICU follow-up and barriers to the implementation of ICFCs. Methods A custom-designed, pilot-tested 12-question online survey was sent to the nurse unit managers and medical directors of all 167 Australian ICUs listed in the database of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society. Outcome measures included proportion of ICUs offering ICFCs, details on types of follow-up services with staffing, funding source, and reasons for not providing ICU follow-up. Results One hundred seven of the 167 ICUs contacted responded to the survey. Of these, two (2%) operated a dedicated ICFC. Both ICFC s were nursing-led, with one receiving dedicated funding and the other being unfunded. Three units (3%) conducted routine outpatient follow-up by telephone; one of these services was doctor-led, and two were nurse-led. Four units (4%) were performing outpatient follow-up as part of research studies only. Among the units not operating an ICFC, the main reason given for not doing so were financial constraints (58%), followed by lack of clinical need (19%) and perceived lack of evidence (11%). Conclusion In Australia, only two ICUs operated an ICFC. Only one outpatient follow-up service received dedicated funding, and financial constraints were the main reason given for units not offering outpatient follow-up services.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: Improved ability to predict impairments after critical illness could guide clinical decision-making, inform trial enrollment, and facilitate comprehensive patient recovery. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to investigate whether physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments could be predicted in adult survivors of critical illness. Data Sources: A systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42018117255) was undertaken on December 8, 2018, and the final searches updated on January 20, 2019. Study Selection: Four independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against study eligibility criteria. Studies were eligible if a prediction model was developed, validated, or updated for impairments after critical illness in adult patients. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or an independent adjudicator. Data Extraction: Data on study characteristics, timing of outcome measurement, candidate predictors, and analytic strategies used were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. Data Synthesis: Of 8,549 screened studies, three studies met inclusion. All three studies focused on the development of a prediction model to predict (1) a mental health composite outcome at 3 months post discharge, (2) return-to-pre-ICU functioning and residence at 6 months post discharge, and (3) physical function 2 months post discharge. Only one model had been externally validated. All studies had a high risk of bias, primarily due to the sample size, and statistical methods used to develop and select the predictors for the prediction published model. Conclusions: We only found three studies that developed a prediction model of any post-ICU impairment. There are several opportunities for improvement for future prediction model development, including the use of standardized outcomes and time horizons, and improved study design and statistical methodology.

Background: After critical illness, new or worsening impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health function are common among patients who have survived. Who should be screened for long-term impairments, what tools to use, and when remain unclear. Objectives: Provide pragmatic recommendations to clinicians caring for adult survivors of critical illness related to screening for postdischarge impairments. Participants: Thirty-one international experts in risk-stratification and assessment of survivors of critical illness, including practitioners involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Thrive Post-ICU Collaboratives, survivors of critical illness, and clinical researchers. Design: Society of Critical Care Medicine consensus conference on post-intensive care syndrome prediction and assessment, held in Dallas, in May 2019. A systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted in 2018 and updated in 2019 to complete an original systematic review and to identify pre-existing systematic reviews. Meeting Outcomes: We concluded that existing tools are insufficient to reliably predict post-intensive care syndrome. We identified factors before (e.g., frailty, preexisting functional impairments), during (e.g., duration of delirium, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome), and after (e.g., early symptoms of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder) critical illness that can be used to identify patients at high-risk for cognitive, mental health, and physical impairments after critical illness in whom screening is recommended. We recommend serial assessments, beginning within 2–4 weeks of hospital discharge, using the following screening tools: Montreal Cognitive Assessment test; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Impact of Event Scale-Revised (post-traumatic stress disorder); 6-minute walk; and/or the EuroQol-5D-5L, a health-related quality of life measure (physical function). Conclusions: Beginning with an assessment of a patient’s pre-ICU functional abilities at ICU admission, clinicians have a care coordination strategy to identify and manage impairments across the continuum. As hospital discharge approaches, clinicians should use brief, standardized assessments and compare these results to patient’s pre-ICU functional abilities (“functional reconciliation”). We recommend serial assessments for post-intensive care syndrome-related problems continue within 2–4 weeks of hospital discharge, be prioritized among high-risk patients, using the identified screening tools to prompt referrals for services and/or more detailed assessments.

Engaging patients in a prehabilitation program prior to commencement of cancer treatment is a known challenge. Utilising experience-based co-design (EBCD) methodology, this study aimed to explore the prostate cancer treatment journey from the perspectives of the patient and health professionals and collaboratively develop a prehabilitation program for patients with prostate cancer. EBCD was utilised for this study. Patients, support persons and health professionals were selectively identified and recruited from two metropolitan health services in Melbourne. Selection criteria included (i) recent clinical/patient experience with prostate cancer treatment and (ii) willingness to share positive experiences and challenges in two 2-hour face-to-face workshops. Findings from these workshops were thematically analysed to identify key themes addressing aims of the study. Twenty participants including eight patients, one support person and 11 health professionals were recruited. Four key touchpoints were identified. All participants acknowledged positive interactions between patients and health professionals. Patients often described the journey as lonely, stressful and frustrating especially prior to commencement of treatment. A lack of a consistent approach in identifying and preparing patients with prostate cancer for treatment was identified. A structured prehabilitation program was proposed as a solution. Practical ideas to be implemented including timing of commencement, educational content and strategies to boost engagement were formulated. The findings from the study provided practical guidance for future clinicians when implementing a prehabilitation program. Future study is required to evaluate the effectiveness of such a prehabilitation program in improving patient engagement and preparedness for prostate cancer treatment.

The provision of early mobilisation to critically ill patients has the potential to improve long term outcomes, but, is complex to deliver. There is minimal literature detailing the training and expertise required to deliver these interventions safely and effectively.The objective of this study was to determine the key elements of a performance standard for assessment of physiotherapists delivering exercise and mobilisation interventions to the critically ill.This is a modified eDelphi expert consensus study. Fifty-one physiotherapists from Australia and New Zealand with relevant clinical, educational, or research experience were included on the expert panel. Background information and the initial pool of items were developed from review of relevant literature. Five survey rounds were administered across two study phases to determine the elements, performance criteria, and assessment scale of the performance standard. Items were modified, amalgamated, and added based upon panel comments.Consensus was achieved for 69 mandatory, and two supplementary performance criteria which were arranged under 15 elements encompassing knowledge, assessment, analysis, intervention, and professional behaviours. A 3-point rating scale was selected to assess item achievement and global performance.Binational expert consensus was reached to define the assessment criteria for physiotherapists delivering exercise and mobilisation interventions to the critically ill. This standard can be utilised in clinical, educational, and research practice environments to guide training, assessment, and skill recognition in critical care physiotherapy.

To investigate the perceived barriers and enablers experienced by physiotherapists whilst delivering community and outpatient services during the COVID-19 pandemic.Qualitative study undertaken at a University-affiliated hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Physiotherapists working in the outpatient setting participated in a semi-structured interview. Interviews were analysed using Framework Analysis, with themes mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).From 19 interviews, we identified major themes and mapped these to the TDF domains: 1. The pandemic rapidly closed the knowledge-practice gap; 2. Adaptation of existing skills and integration of new skills were required; 3. Supportive senior leadership helped the transition; 4. Capabilities and confidence improved with time; 5. Environmental factors were crucial to success or failure of telehealth; 6. Access to and delivery of care improved for some; 7. Identification of appropriate patients and future hybrid models of care; 8. Changes in work practices, role certainty and identity; 9. Development of educational resources consolidated knowledge; 10. Socialisation of telehealth and optimism for the future. Within each domain, key barriers and enablers were also identified.The findings of this study suggest that the delivery of community and outpatient physiotherapy via telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic was an initial challenge. Growing knowledge, confidence and ability to problem solve barriers enabled physiotherapists to move along the continuum of 'fear' to 'triumph' as the pandemic progressed. These results can be used by clinicians, managers, and academics to guide future workforce planning, hospital environmental design, and service delivery. CLINICAL MESSAGE.

Objectives: \ud Investigate the challenges experienced by survivors of critical illness and their caregivers across the transitions of care from intensive care to community, and the potential problem-solving strategies used to navigate these challenges.\ud \ud Design: \ud Qualitative design—data generation via interviews and data analysis via the framework analysis method.\ud \ud Setting: \ud Patients and caregivers from three continents, identified through the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s THRIVE international collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support groups).\ud \ud Subjects: \ud Patients and caregivers following critical illness.\ud \ud Interventions: \ud Nil\ud \ud Measurements and Main Results: \ud From 86 interviews (66 patients, 20 caregivers), we identified the following major themes: 1) Challenges for patients—interacting with the health system and gaps in care; managing others’ expectations of illness and recovery. 2) Challenges for caregivers—health system shortfalls and inadequate communication; lack of support for caregivers. 3) Patient and caregiver-driven problem solving across the transitions of care—personal attributes, resources, and initiative; receiving support and helping others; and acceptance.\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud Survivors and caregivers experienced a range of challenges across the transitions of care. There were distinct and contrasting themes related to the caregiver experience. Survivors and caregivers used comparable problem-solving strategies to navigate the challenges encountered across the transitions of care.

Objectives Significant variability exists in physical rehabilitation modalities and dosage used in the ICU. Our objective was to investigate the effect of physical rehabilitation in ICU on patient outcomes, the impact of task-specific training, and the dose-response profile. Data sources A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL plus databases was undertaken on the May 28, 2020. Study selection Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials investigating physical rehabilitation commencing in the ICU in adults were included. Outcomes included muscle strength, physical function, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality, and health-related quality of life. Two independent reviewers assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts against eligibility criteria. Data extraction Details on intervention for all groups were extracted using the template for intervention description and replication checklist. Data synthesis Sixty trials were included, with a total of 5,352 participants. Random-effects pooled analysis showed that physical rehabilitation improved physical function at hospital discharge (standardized mean difference, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.00-0.44), reduced ICU length of stay by 0.8 days (mean difference, -0.80 d; 95% CI, -1.37 to -0.23 d), and hospital length of stay by 1.75 days (mean difference, -1.75 d; 95% CI, -3.03 to -0.48 d). Physical rehabilitation had no impact on the other outcomes. The intervention was more effective in trials where the control group received low-dose physical rehabilitation and in trials that investigated functional exercises. Conclusions Physical rehabilitation in the ICU improves physical function and reduces ICU and hospital length of stay. However, it does not appear to impact other outcomes.

BackgroundRecent studies suggest that displays of unacceptable behaviour, including bullying, discrimination and harassment, between healthcare workers (HCWs) may impair job performance, and in turn, increase the frequency of medical errors, adverse events and healthcare-related complications. The objective of this systematic review was to summarise the current evidence of the impact of unacceptable behaviour occurring between HCWs on clinical performance and patient outcomes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from 1 January 1990 to 31 March 2021. The search results were screened by two independent reviewers and studies were included if they were original research that assessed the effects of unacceptable behaviour on clinical performance, quality of care, workplace productivity or patient outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using tools relevant to the study design and the data were synthesised without meta-analysis.ResultsFrom the 2559 screened studies, 36 studies were included: 22 survey-based studies, 4 qualitative studies, 3 mixed-methods studies, 4 simulation-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 other study designs. Most survey-based studies were low quality and demonstrated that HCWs perceived a relationship between unacceptable behaviour and worse clinical performance and patient outcomes. This was supported by a smaller number of higher quality retrospective studies and RCTs. Two of four RCTs produced negative results, possibly reflecting inadequate power or study design limitations. No study demonstrated any beneficial effect of unacceptable behaviour on the study outcomes.ConclusionsDespite the mixed quality of evidence and some inconsistencies in the strengths of associations reported, the overall weight of evidence shows that unacceptable behaviour negatively affects the clinical performance of HCWs, quality of care, workplace productivity and patient outcomes. Future research should focus on the evaluation and implementation of interventions that reduce the frequency of these behaviours.

Background: Patients who survive critical illness have well-defined physical, cognitive, emotional, and familial problems. However, the impact of these problems on survivors’ ability to return to w...

Activin A is a potent negative regulator of muscle mass elevated in critical illness. It is unclear whether muscle strength and physical function in critically ill humans are associated with elevated activin A levels.The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between serum activin A levels, muscle strength, and physical function at discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital.Thirty-six participants were recruited from two tertiary ICUs in Melbourne, Australia. Participants were included if they were mechanically ventilated for48 h and expected to have a total ICU stay of5 days. The primary outcome measure was the Six-Minute Walk Test distance at hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included handgrip strength, Medical Research Council Sum Score, Physical Function ICU Test Scored, Six-Minute Walk Test, and Timed Up and Go Test assessed throughout the hospital admission. Total serum activin A levels were measured daily in the ICU.High peak activin A was associated with worse Six-Minute Walk Test distance at hospital discharge (linear regression coefficient, 95% confidence interval, p-value: -91.3, -154.2 to -28.4, p = 0.007, respectively). Peak activin A concentration was not associated with the secondary outcome measures.Higher peak activin A may be associated with the functional decline of critically ill patients. Further research is indicated to examine its potential as a therapeutic target and a prospective predictor for muscle wasting in critical illness.ACTRN12615000047594.

Objective This study assessed the psychological well-being of Australian hospital clinical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods An anonymous online cross-sectional survey was conducted in a large metropolitan tertiary health service located in Melbourne, Australia. The survey was completed by nurses, midwives, doctors and allied health (AH) staff between 15 May and 10 June 2020. The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 items (DASS-21) assessed the psychological well-being of respondents in the previous week. Results In all, 668 people responded to the survey (nurses/midwives, n = 391; doctors, n = 138; AH staff, n = 139). Of these, 108 (16.2%) had direct contact with people with a COVID-19 diagnosis. Approximately one-quarter of respondents reported symptoms of psychological distress. Between 11% (AH staff) and 29% (nurses/midwives) had anxiety scores in the mild to extremely severe ranges. Nurses and midwives had significantly higher anxiety scores than doctors (P

Significant investment in planning and training has occurred across the Australian healthcare sector in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with a primary focus on the medical and nursing workforce. We provide a short summary of a recently published article titled "Surge capacity of Australian intensive care units associated with COVID-19 admissions" in the Medical Journal of Australia and, importantly, highlight a knowledge gap regarding critical care specialised allied health professional (AHP) workforce planning in Australia. The unique skill set provided by critical care specialised AHPs contributes to patient recovery long after the patient leaves the intensive care unit, with management targeted at reducing disability and improving function, activities of daily living, and quality of life. Allied health workforce planning and preparation during COVID-19 must be considered when planning comprehensive and evidence-based patient care. The work by Litton et al. has highlighted the significant lack of available data in relation to staffing of critical care specialised AHPs in Australia, and this needs to be urgently addressed.

Nonurban residential living is associated with adverse outcomes for a number of chronic health conditions. However, it is unclear what effect it has amongst survivors of critical illness.The purpose of this study is to determine whether patients living greater than 50 km from the treating intensive care unit (ICU) have disability outcomes at 6 months that differ from people living within 50 km.This was a multicentre, prospective cohort study conducted in five metropolitan ICUs. Participants were adults admitted to the ICU, who received24 h of mechanical ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. In a secondary analysis of these data, the cohort was dichotomised based on residential distance from the treating ICU:50 km and ≥50 km. The primary outcome was patient-reported disability using the 12-item World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). This was recorded at 6 months after ICU admission by telephone interview. Secondary outcomes included health status as measured by EQ-5D-5L return to work and psychological function as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between distance from the ICU and moderate to severe disability, adjusted for potential confounders. Variables included in the multivariable model were deemed to be clinically relevant and had baseline imbalance between groups (p0.10). These included marital status and hours of mechanical ventilation. Sensitivity analysis was also conducted using distance in kilometres as a continuous variable.A total of 262 patients were enrolled, and 169 (65%) lived within 50 km of the treating ICU and 93 (35%) lived ≥50 km from the treating ICU (interquartile range [IQR] 10-664 km). There was no difference in patient-reported disability at 6 months between patients living50 km and those living ≥50 km (WHODAS total disability % [IQR] 10.4 [2.08-25] v 14.6 [2.08-20.8], P = 0.74). There was also no difference between groups for the six major life domains of the WHODAS. There was no difference in rates of anxiety or depression as measured by HADS score (HADS anxiety median [IQR] 4 [1-7] v 3 [1-7], P = 0.60) (HADS depression median [IQR] 3 [1-6] v 3 [1-6], P = 0.62); health status as measured by EQ-5D (mean [SD] 66.7 [20] v 69.8 [22.2], P = 0.24); or health-related unemployment (% (N) 39 [26] v 25 [29.1], P = 0.61). After adjusting for confounders, living ≥50 km from the treating ICU was not associated with increased disability (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-1.16; P = 0.13) CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of intensive care in Victoria, Australia, who live at least 50 km from the treating ICU did not have greater disability than people living less than 50 km at 6 months after discharge. Living 50 km or more from the treating ICU was not associated with disability, nor was it associated with anxiety or depression, health status, or unemployment due to health.

Peer support has been proposed as a potential intervention to aid recovery across the care arc for patients and their informal caregivers following an ICU admission. This chapter summarises the current state of the art including the emerging evidence base, the practical application of various peer support models, and future directions for research. This chapter also provides insight regarding current best practice for peer support in critical care, issues encountered with implementation and proposed solutions, and how peer support programs may help provide feedback back into the ICU to mitigate common critical care workforce issues such as burnout.

Background Despite increased emphasis on providing higher-quality patient- and family-centered care in the intensive care unit (ICU), there are no widely accepted definitions of such care in the ICU. Objectives To determine (1) aspects of care that patients and families valued during their ICU encounter, (2) outcomes that patients and families prioritized after hospital discharge, and (3) outcomes perceived as equivalent to or worse than death. Methods Semistructured interviews (n = 49) of former patients of an urban, academic medical ICU and their family members. Two investigators reviewed all transcripts line by line to identify key concepts. Codes were created and defined in a codebook with decision rules for their application and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results Salient themes were identified and grouped into 2 major categories: (1) processes of care within the ICU— communication, patient comfort, and a sense that the medical team was “doing everything” (ie, providing exhaustive medical care) and (2) patient and surrogate outcomes after the ICU—survival, quality of life, physical function, and cognitive function. Several outcomes were deemed worse than death: severe cognitive/physical disability, dependence on medical machinery/equipment, and severe/constant pain. Conclusion Although survival was important, most participants qualified this preference. Simple measures of mortality rates may not represent patient- or family-centered outcomes in evaluations of ICU-based interventions, and new measures that incorporate functional outcomes and patients’ and family members’ views of life quality are necessary to promote patient-centered, evidence-based care.

Rationale: Physical restraints are used liberally in some intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent patient harm from device removal or falls. Although the intention of restraint use is patient safety, their application may inadvertently cause physical or psychological harm. Physical restraints may contribute to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but there is a paucity of supportive data.Objectives: To investigate the association between physical restraint use and PTSD symptoms in ICU survivors. Secondary objectives were to examine the cognitive and physical outcomes associated with physical restraint use and to assess interventions that may be effective in reducing restraint use.Methods: A systematic review of English language studies in PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL between January 1, 1990, to February 8, 2020 was performed. Observational or randomized studies that reported on restraint use and associated outcomes, or interventions to reduce restraint use, in critically ill adult patients were identified. Two independent reviewers completed the review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.Results: We identified 794 articles, of which 37 met inclusion criteria and were included. Thirty of these studies related to patient outcomes including PTSD, delirium, mechanical ventilation hours, and physical injury. Seven related to interventions to reduce physical restraint use. The quality of studies was not high; only four of the included studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. Three studies found a significant relationship between restraint use and PTSD, but their results could not be pooled for analysis. Pooled data indicated a significant association between physical restraint use and delirium (odds ratio [OR], 11.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.66-20.01; P

Objectives To evaluate the methodological quality and thematic completeness of existing clinical practice guidelines, addressing early mobilization of adults in the ICU. Data sources Systematic review of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and grey literature from January 2008 to February 2020. Study selection Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and then full texts for eligibility. Ten publications were included. Data extraction A single reviewer extracted data from the included publications and a second reviewer completed cross-checking. Qualitative data were extracted in five categories relating to the key factors influencing delivery of early mobilization to critically ill patients. Data synthesis Methodological quality was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II scores for applicability were low. Median quality scores for editorial independence, rigor of development, and stakeholder engagement were also poor. Narrative synthesis of publication content was undertaken. All publications supported implementation of early mobilization. Most documents agreed upon seven topics: 1) early mobilization is safe and may reduce healthcare costs, 2) safety criteria should be provided, 3) a protocolized or structured approach should be used, 4) collaborative teamwork is required, 5) staff require specific skills or experience, 6) patient and family engagement is important, and 7) program evaluation and outcome measurement are a key component of implementation. There was no consensus on dosage and patient selection. The areas of team culture and leadership were poorly addressed. Conclusions Despite significant variation in the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines for early mobilization, there were important consistencies in recommendations internationally. Future research should address gaps related to patient selection, dosage, team culture, and expertise. Future clinical practice guidelines in this area should focus on engagement of patients and families in the development process and provision of resources to support implementation based on the consideration of known barriers and facilitators.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: To understand from the perspective of patients who did, and did not attend ICU recovery programs, what were the most important components of successful programs and how should they be organized. Design: International, qualitative study. Setting: Fourteen hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Patients: We conducted 66 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of patients, 52 of whom had used an ICU recovery program and 14 whom had not. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Using content analysis, prevalent themes were documented to understand what improved their outcomes. Contrasting quotes from patients who had not received certain aspects of care were used to identify perceived differential effectiveness. Successful ICU recovery programs had five key components: 1) Continuity of care; 2) Improving symptom status; 3) Normalization and expectation management; 4) Internal and external validation of progress; and 5) Reducing feelings of guilt and helplessness. The delivery of care which achieved these goals was facilitated by early involvement (even before hospital discharge), direct involvement of ICU staff, and a focus on integration across traditional disease, symptom, and social welfare needs. Conclusions: In this multicenter study, conducted across three continents, patients identified specific and reproducible modes of benefit derived from ICU recovery programs, which could be the target of future intervention refinement.

Research highlights the psychosocial impact of critical illness on family who typically adopt a caregiver role to the survivor. We review evidence on informal caregiver psychosocial outcomes and interventional studies designed to improve them. We argue informal caregivers have distinct and complex needs that differ from patients. Interventional studies ought to be designed for this cohort with careful attention paid to the timing of interventions. We consider the influence of social isolation on recovery and discuss service improvement approaches to build social support networks to enhance recovery, where caregivers and survivors are involved in the design of aftercare programs.

Identifying solutions to improve recovery after critical illness is a pressing problem. We systematically evaluated studies of peer support as a potential intervention to improve recovery in critical care populations and synthesized elements important to peer support model design.A systematic search of Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychINFO, and Excertpa Medica Database was undertaken May 2017. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification number: CRD42017070174.Two independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against study eligibility criteria. Studies were included where 1) patients and families had experienced critical illness and 2) patients and families had participated in a peer support intervention. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and a third independent reviewer adjudicated as necessary.Two independent reviewers assessed study quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines and interventions summarized using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist.Two-thousand nine-hundred thirty-two studies were screened. Eight were included, comprising 192 family members and 92 patients including adults (with cardiac surgery, acute myocardial infarction, trauma), pediatrics, and neonates. The most common peer support model of the eight studies was an in-person, facilitated group for families that occurred during the patients' ICU admission. Peer support reduced psychologic morbidity and improved social support and self-efficacy in two studies; in both cases, peer support was via an individual peer-to-peer model. In the remaining studies, it was difficult to determine the outcomes of peer support as the reporting and quality of studies was low.Peer support appeared to reduce psychologic morbidity and increase social support. The evidence for peer support in critically ill populations is limited. There is a need for well-designed and rigorously reported research into this complex intervention.

Objectives: Data are lacking regarding implementation of novel strategies such as follow-up clinics and peer support groups, to reduce the burden of postintensive care syndrome. We sought to discover enablers that helped hospital-based clinicians establish post-ICU clinics and peer support programs, and identify barriers that challenged them.\ud \ud Design: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data.\ud \ud Setting: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents.\ud \ud Subjects: Clinicians from 21 sites.\ud \ud Measurement and Main Results: Ten enablers and nine barriers to implementation of “ICU follow-up clinics” were described. A key enabler to generate support for clinics was providing insight into the human experience of survivorship, to obtain interest from hospital administrators. Significant barriers included patient and family lack of access to clinics and clinic funding. Nine enablers and five barriers to the implementation of “peer support groups” were identified. Key enablers included developing infrastructure to support successful operationalization of this complex intervention, flexibility about when peer support should be offered, belonging to the international learning collaborative. Significant barriers related to limited attendance by patients and families due to challenges in creating awareness, and uncertainty about who might be appropriate to attend and target in advertising.\ud \ud Conclusions: Several enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups should be taken into account and leveraged to improve ICU recovery. Among the most important enablers are motivated clinician leaders who persist to find a path forward despite obstacles.

Objective: Identify the key mechanisms which clinicians perceive improve care in the intensive care unit (ICU), as a result of their involvement in post ICU programs. Methods: Qualitative inquiry via focus groups and interviews with members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Thrive collaboratives from over 20 centres in the UK, Australia and US (follow-up clinics and peer support). Framework Analysis was used to synthesize and interpret the data. Results: Five key mechanisms were identified as drivers of improvement back into the ICU: 1) Identifying otherwise unseen targets for ICU quality improvement or education programs - new ideas for quality improvement were generated and greater attention paid to detail in clinical care. 2) Creating a new role for survivors in the ICU - former patients and family members adopted an advocacy or peer volunteer role. 3) Inviting critical care providers to the post-ICU program to educate, sensitize, and motivate them - clinician peers and trainees were invited to attend as a helpful learning strategy to gain insights into post-ICU care requirements. 4) Changing clinician's own understanding of patient experience - there appeared to be a direct individual benefit from working in post-ICU programs. 5) Improving morale and meaningfulness of ICU work - this was achieved by closing the feedback loop to ICU clinicians regarding patient and family outcomes. Conclusions: The follow-up of patients and families in post-ICU care settings is perceived to improve care within the ICU via five key mechanisms. Further testing of whether these mechanisms drive improvements in patient and family-centered care, and whether these programs enhance clinician well-being and ICU culture, is warranted. Funding Statement: K Haines, J McPeake, L Boehm, C Sevin and Tara Quasim are currently receiving funding from SCCM to undertake this work. L Boehm is funded by NIH/NHLBI (K12 HL137943) as is T J Iwashyna (K12 HL138039). Declaration of Interests: : K Haines, J McPeake, L Boehm, C Sevin and Tara Quasim are currently receiving funding from SCCM to undertake this work. L Boehm is funded by NIH/NHLBI (K12 HL137943) as is T J Iwashyna (K12 HL138039). No conflicts of interest declared by other authors. Ethics Approval Statement: The institutional ethics committee of the principal investigator (KH) approved the study (HREC/17/WH/170) and consent was implied through participation.

To determine predictors of inability to return to work due to health six-months after intensive care admission; and compare functional recovery between patients who had not returned to work and employed patients.Participants were working adults admitted to ICU who received24 h of mechanical ventilation. Outcomes included inability to return to work due to health at six-months post-ICU admission, disability, health status, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress.Of 107 patients, 31 (29%) were unable to return to work due to health at six-months after ICU admission. Predictors of inability to return to work included longer hospital stay (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.08; P = .004); lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) at admission (OR, 0.86; CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .03); and admission due to major trauma (OR, 8.83; CI, 2.57-30.38; P .001). Compared to employed patients, those who had not returned to work reported higher levels of disability and psychological distress, and poorer health-related quality of life.Major trauma, lower GCS and increased hospital length of stay predicted inability to return to work due to health at six-months post-ICU admission. Compared to employed patients, those who had not returned to work reported poorer functional recovery.

It is well established that admission to intensive care can result in physical, cognitive and psychological impairments. To assess and treat these impairments competently requires the use of outcome measures in clinical practice. To date, there are no evidence-based recommendations for specific measures to use at different time points on the trajectory of recovery. However, over 33 measures are currently published in research papers. While evidence is scant, the implementation for use of outcomes in daily practice by physiotherapists appears slow and variable. The key aim of this paper is to discuss methods to facilitate clinicians to use outcome measures at the bedside in the ICU. We describe and discuss the barriers and facilitators for use of outcome measures scaffolded in a behaviour change framework and to suggest practical methods by which clinicians may be enabled to use these measures on a daily basis.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapists play an important role in the provision of multidisciplinary team-based care in the ICU. No studies have reported usual care respiratory management or usual care on the wards following ICU discharge by these providers. This study aimed to investigate usual care physiotherapy for ICU subjects during acute hospitalization. METHODS: One hundred subjects were recruited for an observational study from a tertiary Australian ICU. The frequency and type of documented physiotherapist assessment and treatment were extracted retrospectively from medical records. RESULTS: The sample had median (interquartile range) APACHE II score of 17 (13–21) and was mostly male with a median (interquartile range) age of 61 (49–73) y. Physiotherapists reviewed 94% of subjects in the ICU (median of 5 [3–9] occasions, median stay of 4.3 [3–7] d) and 89% of subjects in acute wards (median of 6 [2–12] occasions, median stay of 13.3 [6–28] d). Positioning, ventilator lung hyperinflation, and suctioning were the most frequently performed respiratory care activities in the ICU. The time from ICU admission until ambulation from the bed with a physiotherapist had a median of 5 (3–8) d. The average ambulation distance per treatment had a median of 0 (0–60) m in the ICU and 44 (8–78) m in the acute wards. Adverse event rates were 3.5% in the ICU and 1.8% on the wards. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects received a higher frequency of physiotherapy in the ICU than on acute wards. Consensus is required to ensure consistency in data collection internationally to facilitate comparison of outcomes.