Clinical pharmacist services within intensive care unit recovery clinics: An opinion of the critical care practice and research network of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy

Intensive care unit recovery clinics (ICU- RCs) have been proposed as a potential mechanism to address the multifaceted unmet needs of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and caregivers. The needs of this population include, but are not limited to, medication optimization, addressing physical function and psychological needs, coordination of care, and other interventions that may help in improving patient recovery and reducing the rate of preventable readmissions. The objective of this opinion paper is to identify and describe clinical pharmacy services for the management of ICU survivors and their caregivers in an ICU- RC. The goals are to guide the establishment and development of clinical pharmacist involvement in ICU- RCs and to highlight ICU recovery research and educational opportunities. Recommendations provided in this paper are based on the following: a review of published data on clinical pharmacist involvement in the ICU- RCs; a consensus of clinical pharmacists who provide direct patient care to ICU survivors and caregivers; and a review of published guidelines and literature focusing on the management of ICU survivors and caregivers. These recommendations define areas of clinical pharmacist involvement in ICU- RCs. Consequently, clinical pharmacists can promote education on Post Intensive Care Syndrome and Post Intensive Care Syndrome- Family; improve medication adherence; facilitate appropriate referrals to primary care providers and specialists; ensure comprehensive medication management and medication reconciliation; provide assessment of inappropriate and appropriate medications after hospitalization; address adverse drug events, medication errors, and drug interactions; promote preventive measures; and facilitate medication acquisition with the goal of improving patient outcomes and reducing health care system costs.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163579/2/jac51311.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163579/1/jac51311_am.pd

A Multisite Study of Nurse-Reported Perceptions and Practice of ABCDEF Bundle Components

Objectives: ABCDEF bundle implementation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is associated with dose dependent improvements in patient outcomes. The objective was to compare nurse attitudes about the ABCDEF bundle to self-reported adherence to bundle components. Research methodology/design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Nurses providing direct patient care in 28 ICUs within 18 hospitals across the United States. Main outcome measures: 53-item survey of attitudes and practice of the ABCDEF bundle components was administered between November 2011 and August 2015 (n = 1661). Results: We did not find clinically significant correlations between nurse attitudes and adherence to Awakening trials, Breathing trials, and sedation protocol adherence (rs = 0.05-0.28) or sedation plan discussion during rounds and Awakening and Breathing trial Coordination (rs = 0.19). Delirium is more likely to be discussed during rounds when ICU physicians and nurse managers facilitate delirium reduction (rs = 0.27-0.36). Early mobilization is more likely to occur when ICU physicians, nurse managers, staffing, equipment, and the ICU environment facilitate early mobility (rs = 0.36-0.47). Physician leadership had the strongest correlation with reporting an ICU environment that facilitates ABCDEF bundle implementation (rs = 0.63-0.74). Conclusions: Nurse attitudes about bundle implementation did not predict bundle adherence. Nurse manager and physician leadership played a large role in creating a supportive ICU environment

an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Funding Information: The Société Française d’Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR), Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC), Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva (SATI), Sociedad Chilena de Medicina Intensiva (SOCHIMI), Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB-Net) and the Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BricNet) supported this survey. We would also like to thank our friend Tiago Rocha for making the amazing logo for this study. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brazil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).Background: Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. Methods: This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. Conclusions: Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.publishersversionpublishe

Enablers and Barriers to Implementing ICU Follow-Up Clinics and Peer Support Groups Following Critical Illness: The Thrive Collaboratives

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. DESIGN: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data. SETTING: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents. SUBJECTS: Clinicians from 21 sites. 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. 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

Key mechanisms by which post-ICU activities can improve in-ICU care: results of the international THRIVE collaboratives

Objective: To identify the key mechanisms that 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 collaborative sites (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 research is required in this novel area