Bereavement in critical care: A narrative review and practice exploration of current provision of support services and future challenges

© The Intensive Care Society 2020. This is the accepted manuscript version of an article which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1751143720928898This special article outlines the background to bereavement in critical care and scopes the current provision and evidence for bereavement support following death in critical care. Co-authored by a family member and former critical care patient, we aim to draw out the current challenges and think about how and where support can be implemented along the bereavement pathway. We draw on the literature to examine different trajectories of dying in critical care and explore how these might impact bereavement, highlighting important points and risk factors for complicated grief. We present graphic representation of the critical junctures for bereavement in critical care. Adjustment disorders around grief are explored and the consequences for families, including the existing evidence base. Finally, we propose new areas for research in this field.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

The practice of glycaemic control in intensive care units: A multicentre survey of nursing and medical professionals.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the views of nurses and physicians working in intensive care units (ICU) about the aims of glycaemic control and use of their protocols. BACKGROUND: Evidence about the optimal aims and methods for glycaemic control in ICU is controversial, and current local protocols guiding practice differ between ICUs, both nationally and internationally. The views of professionals on glycaemic control can influence their practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multicentre, survey-based study. METHODS: An online short survey was sent to all physicians and nurses of seven ICUs, including questions on effective glycaemic control, treatment of hypoglycaemia and deviations from protocols' instructions. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Over half of the 40 respondents opined that a patient spending <75% admission time within the target glycaemic levels constituted poor glycaemic control. Professionals with more than 5 years of experience were more likely to rate a patient spending 50%-74% admission time within target glycaemic levels as poor than less experienced colleagues. Physicians were more likely to rate a patient spending <50% admission time within target as poor than nurses. There was general agreement on how professionals would rate most deviations from their protocols. Nurses were more likely to rate insulin infusions restarted late and incorrect dosage of rescue glucose as major deviations than physicians. Most professionals agreed on when they would treat hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: When surveyed on various aspects of glycaemic control, ICU nurses and physicians often agreed, although there were certain areas of disagreement, in which their profession and level of experience seemed to play a role. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Differing views on glycaemic control amongst professionals may affect their practice and, thus, could lead to health inequalities. Clinical leads and the multidisciplinary ICU team should assess and, if necessary, address these differing opinions.Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) Charity and the NUH Department of Research and Innovation University of Nottingham School of Health Sciences director of research small grant

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

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

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

Impact of clinical phenotypes on management and outcomes in European atrial fibrillation patients: a report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational Research Programme in AF (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry

Background: Epidemiological studies in atrial fibrillation (AF) illustrate that clinical complexity increase the risk of major adverse outcomes. We aimed to describe European AF patients\u2019 clinical phenotypes and analyse the differential clinical course. Methods: We performed a hierarchical cluster analysis based on Ward\u2019s Method and Squared Euclidean Distance using 22 clinical binary variables, identifying the optimal number of clusters. We investigated differences in clinical management, use of healthcare resources and outcomes in a cohort of European AF patients from a Europe-wide observational registry. Results: A total of 9363 were available for this analysis. We identified three clusters: Cluster 1 (n = 3634; 38.8%) characterized by older patients and prevalent non-cardiac comorbidities; Cluster 2 (n = 2774; 29.6%) characterized by younger patients with low prevalence of comorbidities; Cluster 3 (n = 2955;31.6%) characterized by patients\u2019 prevalent cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidities. Over a mean follow-up of 22.5 months, Cluster 3 had the highest rate of cardiovascular events, all-cause death, and the composite outcome (combining the previous two) compared to Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 (all P &lt;.001). An adjusted Cox regression showed that compared to Cluster 2, Cluster 3 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27\u20133.62; HR 3.42, 95%CI 2.72\u20134.31; HR 2.79, 95%CI 2.32\u20133.35), and Cluster 1 (HR 1.88, 95%CI 1.48\u20132.38; HR 2.50, 95%CI 1.98\u20133.15; HR 2.09, 95%CI 1.74\u20132.51) reported a higher risk for the three outcomes respectively. Conclusions: In European AF patients, three main clusters were identified, differentiated by differential presence of comorbidities. Both non-cardiac and cardiac comorbidities clusters were found to be associated with an increased risk of major adverse outcomes

An evaluation of activation and implementation of themedical emergency team system

Problem investigated:The activation and implementation of the Medical Emergency Team (MET)system.Procedures followed:The ability of the objective activation criteria to accurately identify patients atrisk of three serious adverse events (cardiac arrest, unexpected death andunplanned intensive care admission) was assessed using a nested, matchedcase-control study. Sensitivity, specificity and Receiver OperatingCharacteristic curve (ROC) analyses were performed.The MET implementation process was studied using two convenience samplesurveys of the nursing staff from the general wards of twelve interventionhospitals. These surveys measured the awareness and understanding of theMET system, level of attendance at MET education sessions, knowledge of theactivation criteria, level of intention to call the MET and overall attitude to theMET system, and the hospital level of support for change, hospital capabilityand hospital culture. The association of these measures with the intention tocall the MET and the level of MET utilisation was assessed using nonparametriccorrelation.Results obtained:The respiratory rate was missing in 20% of subjects. Using listwise deletion, theset of objective activation criteria investigated predicted an adverse eventwithin 24 hours with a sensitivity of 55.4% (50.6-60.0%) and specificity of93.7% (91.2-95.6%). An analysis approach that assumed the missing valueswould not have resulted in MET activation provided a sensitivity of 50.4% (45.7-55.2%) and specificity of 93.3% (90.8-95.3%). Alternative models with modifiedcut-off values provided different results.The MET system was implemented with variable success during the MERITstudy. Knowledge and understanding of the system, hospital readiness, and apositive attitude were all significantly positively associated with MET systemutilisation, while defensive hospital cultures were negatively associated withthe level of MET system utilisation.Major conclusions:The objective activation criteria studied have acceptable accuracy, butmodification of the criteria may be considered. A satisfactory trade-off betweenthe identification of patients at risk and workload requirements may be difficultto achieve.Measures of effectiveness of the implementation process may be associatedwith the level of MET system utilisation. Trials of the MET system shouldensure good knowledge and understanding of the system, particularly amongstnursing staff