Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

A Pragmatic Randomised, Controlled Trial of Intensive Care follow up programmes in improving Longer-term outcomes from critical illness : the PRACTICAL study

By Brian Cuthbertson, Rodolfo Andrés Hernández, Craig R Ramsay, John David Norrie, Marion Kay Campbell, PRACTICAL Study Group, Janice Rattray, Marie Johnston, J. Anthony Wildsmith, Edward Wilson and Alastair M. Hull

Abstract

Background: A number of intensive care (ICU) patients experience significant problems with physical, psychological, and social functioning for some time after discharge from ICU. These problems have implications not just for patients, but impose a continuing financial burden for the National Health Service. To support recovery, a number of hospitals across the UK have developed Intensive Care follow-up clinics. However, there is a lack of evidence base to support these, and this study aims to test the hypothesis that intensive care follow up programmes are effective and cost-effective at improving physical and psychological quality of life in the year after intensive care discharge. Methods/Design: This is a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Patients (n = 270) will be recruited prior to hospital discharge from three intensive care units in the UK, and randomised to one of two groups. The control group will receive standard in-hospital follow-up and the intervention group will participate in an ICU follow-up programme with clinic appointments 2–3 and 9 months after ICU discharge. The primary outcome measure is Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) 12 months after ICU discharge as measured by the Short Form-36. Secondary measures include: HRQoL at six months; Quality-adjusted life years using EQ-5D; posttraumatic psychopathology as measured by Davidson Trauma Scale; and anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at both six and twelve months after ICU discharge. Contacts with health services in the twelve months after ICU discharge will be measured as part of the economic analysis. Discussion: The provision of intensive care follow-up clinics within the UK has developed in an ad hoc manner, is inconsistent in both the number of hospitals offering such a service or in the type of service offered. This study provides the opportunity to evaluate such services both in terms of patient benefit and cost-effectiveness. The results of this study therefore will inform clinical practice and policy with regard to the appropriate development of such services aimed at improving outcomes after intensive care.This project is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive Health Department (project number CZH/4/351).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Topics: Continuity of Patient Care, Critical Illness, Outcome Assessment, Quality of Life, RC Internal medicine
Publisher: BioMed Central
Year: 2007
DOI identifier: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-116
OAI identifier: oai:aura.abdn.ac.uk:2164/170
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2003). A multidisciplinary follow-up clinic after patients' discharge from ITU.
  2. (1995). A: A Social Tariff for EuroQoL of Life: Results from a UK General Population Survey. Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper
  3. (1999). A: Quality of life after prolonged intensive care. Critical Care Medicine doi
  4. (1999). Acute confusion and unreal experiences in intensive care patients in relation to the ICU syndrome. Part II. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing doi
  5. (1996). An exploratory study of patients' memory recall of their stay in an adult intensive therapy unit. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing doi
  6. (2001). and the development of acute posttraumatic stress disorderrelated symptoms after intensive care. Critical Care Medicine doi
  7. (1985). APACHE II: A severity of disease classification system. Critical Care Medicine doi
  8. (1999). Audit Commission: Critical to Success.
  9. (1999). Colket JT: Assessment of a new selfreport scale for PTSD. Psychol Med
  10. (1997). D: Changes in quality of life after intensive care: comparison with normal data. Anaesthesia doi
  11. (2001). Fauvel N: Psychological problems following ICU treatment. Anaesthesia
  12. Health: Critical Care Outreach 2003: progress in developing services.
  13. (2002). Incidence of recall, nightmares, and hallucinations during analgosedation in intensive care. Intensive Care Medicine doi
  14. (1997). Out of hospital outcome and quality of life in survivors of combined acute multiple organ and renal failure treated with continuous venovenous hemofiltraion/hemodiafiltration. Intensive Care Medicine doi
  15. (2004). Post-traumatic stress disorder after critical illness requing general intensive care. Intensive Care Medicine
  16. (2004). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Health-Related Quality of Life in Long-Term Survivors of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. The American Journal of Psychiatry
  17. (1996). Quality of life after intensive care. Nursing in Critical Care doi
  18. (2005). Quality of life before and after intensive care. Anaesthesia
  19. (2003). SA: Long-term survival following intensive care: subgroup analysis and comparison with the general population. Anaesthesia
  20. Scottish Intensive Care Society Annual Audit [http://
  21. (2002). SJ: Intensive care follow-up – what has it told us? Critical Care
  22. (1983). Snaith RP: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand doi
  23. (2000). Survival, morbidity, and quality of life after discharge from intensive care. Critical Care Medicine doi
  24. (2004). The Intensive Care Experience: Development of the Intensive Care Experience (ICE)

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.