‘Doing the best we can’: Registered Nurses' experiences and perceptions of patient safety in intensive care during COVID-19

Aims: To explore registered nurses' experiences of patient safety in intensive care during COVID-19. Design: A qualitative interview study informed by constructivism. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and audio-recorded with 19 registered nurses who worked in intensive care during COVID-19 between May and July 2021. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed utilizing framework. Results: Two key themes were identified. ‘On a war footing’—an unprecedented situation which describes the situation nurses faced, and the actions are taken to prepare for the safe delivery of care. ‘Doing the best we can’—Safe Delivery of Care which describes the ramifications of the actions taken on short- and long-term patient safety including organization of care, missed and suboptimal care and communication. Both themes were embedded in the landscape of Staff Well-being and Peer Support. Conclusion: Nurses reported an increase in patient safety risks which they attributed to the dilution of skill mix and fragmentation of care. Nurses demonstrated an understanding of the holistic and long-term impacts on patient safety and recovery from critical illness. Impact: This study explored the perceived impact of COVID-19 on patient safety in intensive care from a nursing perspective. Dilution of skill mix, where specialist critical care registered nurses were diluted with registered nurses with no critical care experience, and the fragmentation of care was perceived to lead to reduced quality of care and increased adverse events and risk of harm which were not consistently formally reported. Furthermore, nurses demonstrated a holistic and long-term appreciation of patient safety. These findings should be considered as part of future nursing workforce modelling and patient safety strategies by intensive care leaders and managers. No public or patient contribution to this study. The study aims and objectives were developed in collaboration with health care professionals

Clinical Academic Research Internships: what works for nurses and the wider nursing, midwifery and allied health professional workforce

Nurse-led research and innovation is key to improving health experiences and outcomes and reducing health inequalities. Clinical academic training programmes for nurses to develop research and innovation skills alongside continued development of their clinical practice are becoming increasingly established at national, regional and local levels. Though widely supported, geographical variation in the range and scope of opportunities available remains. It is imperative that clinical academic opportunities for nurses continue to grow to ensure equity of access and opportunity so that the potential of nurse-led clinical academic research to improve quality of care, health experience and health outcomes can be realised. In this paper we describe and report on clinical academic internship opportunities available to nurses to share internationally, a range of innovative programmes currently in operation across the UK. Examples of some of the tangible benefits for patients, professional development, clinical teams and NHS organisations resulting from these clinical academic internships are illustrated. Information from local evaluations of internship programmes were collated to report what has worked well alongside ‘real-world’ set-up and sustainability challenges faced in practice. Clinical academic internship schemes are often opportunistically developed, making use of hybrid models of delivery and funding responsive to local needs and available resources. Key enablers of successful clinical academic internship programmes for nurses were support from senior clinical leaders and established relationships with local universities and wider organisations committed to research capacity building

'Doing the best we can': Registered nurses' experiences and perceptions of patient safety in intensive care during COVID-19

Aims: To explore registered nurses' experiences of patient safety in intensive care during COVID-19.Design: A qualitative interview study informed by constructivism. Method: Semi-    structured interviews were conducted and audio- recorded with 19 registered nurses who worked in intensive care during COVID-19 between May and July 2021. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed utilizing framework. Results: Two key themes were identified. ‘On a war footing’—an unprecedented situation which describes the situation nurses faced, and the actions are taken to prepare for the safe delivery of care. ‘Doing the best we can’—Safe Delivery of Care which describes the ramifications of the actions taken on short-  and long-term patient safety including organization of care, missed and suboptimal care and communication. Both themes were embedded in the landscape of Staff Well-being and Peer  Support. Conclusion: Nurses reported an increase in patient safety risks which they attributed to the dilution of skill mix and fragmentation of care. Nurses demonstrated an under-standing of the holistic and long-term impacts on patient safety and recovery from critical illness. Impact: This study explored the perceived impact of COVID-19 on patient safety in intensive care from a nursing perspective. Dilution of skill mix, where specialist critical care registered nurses were diluted with registered nurses with no critical care experience, and the fragmentation of care was perceived to lead to reduced quality of care and increased adverse events and risk of harm which were not consistently formally reported. Furthermore, nurses demonstrated a holistic and long-term appreciation of patient safety. These findings should be considered as part of future nursing work-force modelling and patient safety strategies by intensive care leaders and managers. No public or patient contribution to this study. The study aims and objectives were developed in collaboration with health care professionals

Recovery, rehabilitation and follow-up services following critical illness: an updated UK national cross-sectional survey and progress report

Objective: To comprehensively update and survey the current provision of recovery, rehabilitation and follow-up services for adult critical care patients across the UK. Design: Cross-sectional, self-administered, predominantly closed-question, electronic, online survey. Setting: Institutions providing adult critical care services identified from national databases. Participants: Multiprofessional critical care clinicians delivering services at each site. Results: Responses from 176 UK hospital sites were included (176/242, 72.7%). Inpatient recovery and follow-up services were present at 127/176 (72.2%) sites, adopting multiple formats of delivery and primarily delivered by nurses (n=115/127, 90.6%). Outpatient services ran at 130 sites (73.9%), predominantly as outpatient clinics. Most services (n=108/130, 83.1%) were co-delivered by two or more healthcare professionals, typically nurse/intensive care unit (ICU) physician (n=29/130, 22.3%) or nurse/ICU physician/physiotherapist (n=19/130, 14.6%) teams. Clinical psychology was most frequently lacking from inpatient or outpatient services. Lack of funding was consistently the primary barrier to service provision, with other barriers including logistical and service prioritisation factors indicating that infrastructure and profile for services remain inadequate. Posthospital discharge physical rehabilitation programmes were relatively few (n=31/176, 17.6%), but peer support services were available in nearly half of responding institutions (n=85/176, 48.3%). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in either increasing, decreasing or reformatting service provision. Future plans for long-term service transformation focus on expansion of current, and establishment of new, outpatient services. Conclusion: Overall, these data demonstrate a proliferation of recovery, follow-up and rehabilitation services for critically ill adults in the past decade across the UK, although service gaps remain suggesting further work is required for guideline implementation. Findings can be used to enhance survivorship for critically ill adults, inform policymakers and commissioners, and provide comparative data and experiential insights for clinicians designing models of care in international healthcare jurisdictions

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Intensive Care discharge summaries for General Practice Staff:a focus group study

BACKGROUND: Understanding how patients and relatives can be supported after hospital discharge is a UK research priority. Intensive Care Unit (ICU) discharge summaries are a simple way of providing GPs with the information they require to coordinate ongoing care, but little evidence is available to guide best practice. AIM: This study aimed at better understanding the information needs of GP staff (GPs and practice nurses) supporting former patients of ICUs and their families following discharge from hospital, and identifying the barriers/facilitators associated with ICU–primary care information transfer. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a qualitative exploratory study of practices and participants throughout the UK. METHOD: Audiotaped focus group discussions, complemented by small-group/individual interviews, were conducted with 15 former patients of ICUs, four relatives, and 20 GP staff between June and September 2015. Demographic data were captured by questionnaire and qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Findings suggest variability in discharge information experiences and blurred lines of responsibility between hospital and GP staff, and patients/relatives. Continuity of care was affected by delayed or poor communication from the hospital; GPs’ limited contact with patients from critical care; and a lack of knowledge of the effects of critical illness or resources available to ameliorate these difficulties. Time pressures and information technology were, respectively, the most commonly mentioned barrier and facilitator. CONCLUSION: Effective rehabilitation after a critical illness requires a coordinated and comprehensive approach, incorporating the provision of well-completed, timely, and relevant ICU–primary care discharge information. Health professionals need an improved understanding of critical illness, and patients and families must be included in all aspects of the information-sharing process