Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN)--prospective validation of risk prediction models for adult patients with acute traumatic brain injury to use to evaluate the optimum location and comparative costs of neurocritical care: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To validate risk prediction models for acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to use the best model to evaluate the optimum location and comparative costs of neurocritical care in the NHS. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Sixty-seven adult critical care units. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients admitted to critical care following actual/suspected TBI with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of < 15. INTERVENTIONS: Critical care delivered in a dedicated neurocritical care unit, a combined neuro/general critical care unit within a neuroscience centre or a general critical care unit outside a neuroscience centre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended (GOSE) questionnaire and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 3-level version (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire at 6 months following TBI. RESULTS: The final Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN) study data set contained 3626 admissions. After exclusions, 3210 patients with acute TBI were included. Overall follow-up rate at 6 months was 81%. Of 3210 patients, 101 (3.1%) had no GCS score recorded and 134 (4.2%) had a last pre-sedation GCS score of 15, resulting in 2975 patients for analysis. The most common causes of TBI were road traffic accidents (RTAs) (33%), falls (47%) and assault (12%). Patients were predominantly young (mean age 45 years overall) and male (76% overall). Six-month mortality was 22% for RTAs, 32% for falls and 17% for assault. Of survivors at 6 months with a known GOSE category, 44% had severe disability, 30% moderate disability and 26% made a good recovery. Overall, 61% of patients with known outcome had an unfavourable outcome (death or severe disability) at 6 months. Between 35% and 70% of survivors reported problems across the five domains of the EQ-5D-3L. Of the 10 risk models selected for validation, the best discrimination overall was from the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI Lab model (IMPACT) (c-index 0.779 for mortality, 0.713 for unfavourable outcome). The model was well calibrated for 6-month mortality but substantially underpredicted the risk of unfavourable outcome at 6 months. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between dedicated neurocritical care units and combined neuro/general critical care units. In lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis, dedicated neurocritical care units had higher mean lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at small additional mean costs with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,000 per QALY and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of £17,000. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggested that the probability that dedicated compared with combined neurocritical care units are cost-effective is around 60%. There were substantial differences in case mix between the 'early' (within 18 hours of presentation) and 'no or late' (after 24 hours) transfer groups. After adjustment, the 'early' transfer group reported higher lifetime QALYs at an additional cost with an ICER of £11,000 and INB of £17,000. CONCLUSIONS: The risk models demonstrated sufficient statistical performance to support their use in research but fell below the level required to guide individual patient decision-making. The results suggest that management in a dedicated neurocritical care unit may be cost-effective compared with a combined neuro/general critical care unit (although there is considerable statistical uncertainty) and support current recommendations that all patients with severe TBI would benefit from transfer to a neurosciences centre, regardless of the need for surgery. We recommend further research to improve risk prediction models; consider alternative approaches for handling unobserved confounding; better understand long-term outcomes and alternative pathways of care; and explore equity of access to postcritical care support for patients following acute TBI. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Analysis of Benefit of Intensive Care Unit Transfer for Deteriorating Ward Patients: A Patient-Centered Approach to Clinical Evaluation

Importance It is unknown which deteriorating ward patients benefit from intensive care unit (ICU) transfer. Objectives To use an instrumental variable (IV) method that assesses heterogeneity and to evaluate estimates of person-centered treatment effects of ICU transfer and 28-day hospital mortality by age and illness severity. Design, Setting, and Participants An analysis of a prospective cohort study from November 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. The dates of this analysis were June 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. The setting was a multicenter study of 49 UK National Health Service hospitals. Participants were 9192 deteriorating ward patients assessed for ICU transfer (4596 matched pairs). The study matched on baseline characteristics to strengthen the IV and to balance observed confounders between the comparison groups. Exposures Transfer to the ICU or continued care on general wards. Main Outcomes and Measures Mortality at 28 days (primary outcome) and 90 days. To address unobserved confounding, ICU bed availability was the IV for whether or not a patient was transferred. The study used the IV approach to evaluate estimates of treatment effect of ICU transfer and mortality according to age and physiological severity alone and in combination. Results Both comparison groups included 4596 patients. In the group assessed with “many” ICU beds available (median, 7), 52.8% were male, and the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (17.7) years; in the group assessed with “few” ICU beds available (median, 2), 53.3% were male, and the mean (SD) age was 65.0 (17.3) years. The overall 28-day mortality estimates were 23.2% (2090 predicted deaths) if all of the matched patients were transferred vs 28.1% (2534 predicted deaths) if none of the matched patients were transferred, an estimated risk difference of −4.9% (95% CI, −26.4% to 16.6%). The estimated effects of ICU transfer differed by age and by physiological severity according to the National Early Warning Score (NEWS): the absolute risk differences in 28-day mortality after ICU transfer ranged from 7.7% (95% CI, −5.5% to 21.0%) for ages 18 to 23 years to −5.0% (95% CI -26.5% to 16.6%) for age 78 to 83 years and ranged from 3.7% (95% CI, −12.1% to 19.5%) for NEWS of 0 to −25.4% (95% CI, −50.6% to −0.2%) for NEWS of 19. The absolute risk differences for elderly patients (≥75 years) were −11.6% (95% CI, −39.0% to 15.8%) for those with high NEWS (>6), −4.8% (95% CI, −30.5% to 20.9%) for those with moderate NEWS (5-6), and −1.0% (95% CI, −24.8% to 22.8%) for those with low NEWS (<5). The corresponding estimates for subgroups of younger patients (<75 years) were −8.4% (95% CI, −31.0% to 14.1%), −2.1% (95% CI, −21.1% to 16.9%), and 1.4% (95% CI, −14.5% to 17.4%). Conclusions and Relevance This study using a this person-centered IV approach found that the benefits of ICU care may increase among patients at high levels of baseline physiological severity across different age groups, especially among elderly patients

An evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative care locations for critically ill adult patients with acute traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: For critically ill adult patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI), we assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness of: (a) Management in dedicated neurocritical care units versus combined neuro/general critical care units within neuroscience centres. (b) 'Early' transfer to a neuroscience centre versus 'no or late' transfer for those who present at a non-neuroscience centre. METHODS: The Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN) Study included prospective admissions following acute TBI to 67 UK adult critical care units during 2009-11. Data were collected on baseline case-mix, mortality, resource use, and at six months, Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), and quality of life (QOL) (EuroQol 5D-3L). We report incremental effectiveness, costs and cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) of the alternative care locations, adjusting for baseline differences with validated risk prediction models. We tested the robustness of results in sensitivity analyses. FINDINGS: Dedicated neurocritical care unit patients (N = 1324) had similar six-month mortality, higher QOL (mean gain 0.048, 95% CI -0.002 to 0.099) and increased average costs compared with those managed in combined neuro/general units (N = 1341), with a lifetime cost per QALY gained of £14,000. 'Early' transfer to a neuroscience centre (N = 584) was associated with lower mortality (odds ratio 0.52, 0.34-0.80), higher QOL for survivors (mean gain 0.13, 0.032-0.225), but positive incremental costs (£15,001, £11,123 to £18,880) compared with 'late or no transfer' (N = 263). The lifetime cost per QALY gained for 'early' transfer was £11,000. CONCLUSIONS: For critically ill adult patients with acute TBI, within neuroscience centres management in dedicated neurocritical care units versus combined neuro/general units led to improved QoL and higher costs, on average, but these differences were not statistically significant. This study finds that 'early' transfer to a neuroscience centre is associated with reduced mortality, improvement in QOL and is cost-effective

Establishing and augmenting views on the acceptability of a paediatric critical care randomised controlled trial (the FEVER trial): a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE: To explore parent and staff views on the acceptability of a randomised controlled trial investigating temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever and infection (the FEVER trial) during a multi-phase pilot study. DESIGN: Mixed methods study with data collected at three time points: (1) before, (2) during and (3) after a pilot trial. SETTING: English, Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs). PARTICIPANTS: (1) Pre-pilot trial focus groups with pilot site staff (n=56) and interviews with parents (n=25) whose child had been admitted to PICU in the last 3 years with a fever and suspected infection, (2) Questionnaires with parents of randomised children following pilot trial recruitment (n=48 from 47 families) and (3) post-pilot trial interviews with parents (n=19), focus groups (n=50) and a survey (n=48) with site staff. Analysis drew on Sekhon et al's theoretical framework of acceptability. RESULTS: There was initial support for the trial, yet some held concerns regarding the proposed temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed protocol changes and training, which influenced views on trial acceptability. Staff trained by the FEVER team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. Some concerns about pain or discomfort during weaning from ventilation remained. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience influenced acceptability, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform future trial feasibility studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN16022198 and NCT03028818

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early nutritional support via the parenteral versus the enteral route in critically ill patients (CALORIES)

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a common problem in critically ill patients in UK NHS critical care units. Early nutritional support is therefore recommended to address deficiencies in nutritional state and related disorders in metabolism. However, evidence is conflicting regarding the optimum route (parenteral or enteral) of delivery. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route on mortality at 30 days and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. Secondary objectives were to compare the route of early nutritional support on duration of organ support; infectious and non-infectious complications; critical care unit and acute hospital length of stay; all-cause mortality at critical care unit and acute hospital discharge, at 90 days and 1 year; survival to 90 days and 1 year; nutritional and health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Adult general critical care units in 33 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: 2400 eligible patients. INTERVENTIONS: Five days of early nutritional support delivered via the parenteral (n = 1200) and enteral (n = 1200) route. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (INB) (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year. RESULTS: By 30 days, 393 of 1188 (33.1%) patients assigned to receive early nutritional support via the parenteral route and 409 of 1195 (34.2%) assigned to the enteral route had died [p = 0.57; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.65 to 4.94; relative risk 0.97 (0.86 to 1.08)]. At 1 year, INB for the parenteral route compared with the enteral route was negative at -£1320 (95% CI -£3709 to £1069). The probability that early nutritional support via the parenteral route is more cost-effective - given the data - is < 20%. The proportion of patients in the parenteral group who experienced episodes of hypoglycaemia (p = 0.006) and of vomiting (p < 0.001) was significantly lower than in the enteral group. There were no significant differences in the 15 other secondary outcomes and no significant interactions with pre-specified subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Blinding of nutritional support was deemed to be impractical and, although the primary outcome was objective, some secondary outcomes, although defined and objectively assessed, may have been more vulnerable to observer bias. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days for early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route among adults admitted to critical care units in England. On average, costs were higher for the parenteral route, which, combined with similar survival and quality of life, resulted in negative INBs at 1 year. FUTURE WORK: Nutritional support is a complex combination of timing, dose, duration, delivery and type, all of which may affect outcomes and costs. Conflicting evidence remains regarding optimum provision to critically ill patients. There is a need to utilise rigorous consensus methods to establish future priorities for basic and clinical research in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17386141. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

A nurse-led, preventive, psychological intervention to reduce PTSD symptom severity in critically ill patients: the POPPI feasibility study and cluster RCT

BACKGROUND: High numbers of patients experience severe acute stress in critical care units. Acute stress has been linked to post-critical care psychological morbidity, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previously, a preventive, complex psychological intervention [Psychological Outcomes following a nurse-led Preventative Psychological Intervention for critically ill patients (POPPI)] was developed by this research team, to be led by nurses, to reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to (1) standardise and refine the POPPI intervention, and, if feasible, (2) evaluate it in a cluster randomised clinical trial (RCT). DESIGN: Two designs were used – (1) two feasibility studies to test the delivery and acceptability (to patients and staff) of the intervention, education package and support tools, and to test the trial procedures (i.e. recruitment and retention), and (2) a multicentre, parallel-group, cluster RCT with a baseline period and staggered roll-out of the intervention. SETTING: This study was set in NHS adult, general critical care units. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were adult patients who were > 48 hours in a critical care unit, receiving level 3 care and able to consent. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention comprised three elements – (1) creating a therapeutic environment in critical care, (2) three stress support sessions for patients identified as acutely stressed and (3) a relaxation and recovery programme for patients identified as acutely stressed. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcome – patient-reported symptom severity using the PTSD Symptom Scale – Self Report (PSS-SR) questionnaire (to measure clinical effectiveness) and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefit at 6 months (to measure cost-effectiveness). Secondary outcomes – days alive and free from sedation to day 30; duration of critical care unit stay; PSS-SR score of > 18 points; depression, anxiety and health-related quality of life at 6 months; and lifetime cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: (1) A total of 127 participants were recruited to the intervention feasibility study from two sites and 86 were recruited to the RCT procedures feasibility study from another two sites. The education package, support tools and intervention were refined. (2) A total of 24 sites were randomised to the intervention or control arms. A total of 1458 participants were recruited. Twelve sites delivered the intervention during the intervention period: > 80% of patients received two or more stress support sessions and all 12 sites achieved the target of > 80% of clinical staff completing the POPPI online training. There was, however, variation in delivery across sites. There was little difference between baseline and intervention periods in the development of PTSD symptom severity (measured by mean PSS-SR score) at 6 months for surviving patients in either the intervention or the control group: treatment effect estimate −0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.58 to 2.52; p = 0.98. On average, the intervention decreased costs and slightly improved QALYs, leading to a positive incremental net benefit at 6 months (£835, 95% CI −£4322 to £5992), but with considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding these results. There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the prespecified subgroup analyses. LIMITATIONS: There was a risk of bias because different consent processes were used and as a result of the lack of blinding, which was mitigated as far as possible within the study design. The intervention started later than anticipated. Patients were not routinely monitored for delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Among level 3 patients who stayed > 48 hours in critical care, the delivery of a preventive, complex psychological intervention, led by nurses, did not reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months, when compared with usual care. FUTURE WORK: Prior to development and evaluation of subsequent psychological interventions, there is much to learn from post hoc analyses of the cluster RCT rich quantitative and qualitative data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61088114 and ISRCTN53448131. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 23, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Providing psychological support to people in intensive care: development and feasibility study of a nurse-led intervention to prevent acute stress and long-term morbidity

OBJECTIVES: Adverse psychological outcomes, following stressful experiences in critical care, affect up to 50% of patients. We aimed to develop and test the feasibility of a psychological intervention to reduce acute stress and prevent future morbidity. DESIGN: A mixed-methods intervention development study, using two stages of the UK Medical Research Council framework for developing and testing complex interventions. Stage one (development) involved identifying an evidence base for the intervention, developing a theoretical understanding of likely processes of change and modelling change processes and outcomes. Stage two comprised two linked feasibility studies. SETTING: Four UK general adult critical care units. PARTICIPANTS: Stage one: former and current patients, and psychology, nursing and education experts. Stage two: current patients and staff. OUTCOMES: Feasibility and acceptability to staff and patients of content and delivery of a psychological intervention, assessed using quantitative and qualitative data. Estimated recruitment and retention rates for a clinical trial. RESULTS: Building on prior work, we standardised the preventative, nurse-led Provision Of Psychological support to People in Intensive Care (POPPI) intervention. We devised courses and materials to train staff to create a therapeutic environment, to identify patients with acute stress and to deliver three stress support sessions and a relaxation and recovery programme to them. 127 awake, orientated patients took part in an intervention feasibility study in two hospitals. Patient and staff data indicated the complex intervention was feasible and acceptable. Feedback was used to refine the intervention. 86 different patients entered a separate trial procedures study in two other hospitals, of which 66 (80% of surviving patients) completed questionnaires on post-traumatic stress, depression and health 5 months after recruitment. CONCLUSION: The 'POPPI' psychological intervention to reduce acute patient stress in critical care and prevent future psychological morbidity was feasible and acceptable. It was refined for evaluation in a cluster randomised clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN61088114; Results