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

Benefits of peer support for intensive care unit survivors: sharing experiences, care debriefing, and altruism

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

Patient and caregiver-derived health service improvements for better critical care recovery

No abstract available

Transitions of care after critical illness – challenges to recovery and adaptive problem solving

Objectives: 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. Design: Qualitative design—data generation via interviews and data analysis via the framework analysis method. Setting: 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). Subjects: Patients and caregivers following critical illness. Interventions: Nil Measurements and Main Results: 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. Conclusions: 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

Characteristics of Post-ICU and Post-COVID Recovery Clinics in 29 U.S. Health Systems.

The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingThirty-nine RCs, representing a combined 156 hospitals within 29 health systems participated.PatientsNone.InterventionsNone.Measurement and main resultsRC demographics, referral criteria, and operating characteristics were collected, including measures used to assess physical, psychologic, and cognitive recoveries. Thirty-nine RC surveys were completed (94% response rate). ICU-RC teams included physicians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and advanced practice providers. Funding sources for ICU-RCs included clinical billing (n = 20, 77%), volunteer staff support (n = 15, 58%), institutional staff/space support (n = 13, 46%), and grant or foundation funding (n = 3, 12%). Forty-six percent of RCs report patient visit durations of 1 hour or longer. ICU-RC teams reported use of validated scales to assess psychologic recovery (93%), physical recovery (89%), and cognitive recovery (86%) more often in standard visits compared with COVID-RC teams (psychologic, 54%; physical, 69%; and cognitive, 46%).ConclusionsOperating structures of RCs vary, though almost all describe modest capacity and reliance on volunteerism and discretionary institutional support. ICU- and COVID-RCs in the United States employ varied funding sources and endorse different assessment measures during visits to guide care coordination. Common features include integration of ICU clinicians, interdisciplinary approach, and focus on severe critical illness. The heterogeneity in RC structures and processes contributes to future research on the optimal structure and process to achieve the best postintensive care syndrome and postacute sequelae of COVID outcomes