Introduction Patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation via an artificial airway experience sudden voicelessness placing them at risk for adverse outcomes and increasing provider workload. Infection control precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of personal protective equipment (eg, gloves, masks, etc), patient isolation, and visitor restrictions may exacerbate communication difficulty. The objective of this study is to evaluate the acceptability of a codesigned communication intervention for use in the adult intensive care unit when infection control precautions such as those used during COVID-19 are required. Methods and analysis This three-phased, prospective study will take place in a medical surgical ICU in a community teaching hospital in Toronto. Participants will include ICU healthcare providers, adult patients and their family members. Qualitative interviews (target n: 20–25) will explore participant perceptions of the barriers to and facilitators for supporting patient communication in the adult ICU in the context of COVID-19 and infection control precautions (phase 1). Using principles of codesign, a stakeholder advisory council of 8–10 participants will iteratively produce an intervention (phase 2). The codesigned intervention will then be implemented and undergo a mixed method acceptability evaluation in the study setting (phase 3). Acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness will be evaluated using validated measures (target n: 60–65). Follow-up semistructured interviews will be analysed using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). The primary outcomes of this study will be acceptability ratings and descriptions of a codesigned COmmunication intervention for use during and beyond the COVID-19 PandEmic. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been reviewed, and ethics approval was obtained from the Michael Garron Hospital. Results will be made available to healthcare providers in the study setting throughout the study and through publications and conference presentations.
Abstract Objective Adolescents receiving long‐term home mechanical ventilation (HMV) who survive into adulthood must transition to adult health care services. Lack of transition readiness is reported to result in poor health outcomes. The objective of this study is to explore longitudinally the pediatric‐to‐adult health care transition experience involving a transition program for adolescents receiving HMV including transition readiness, barriers, facilitators, and modifiable features. Design A prospective qualitative longitudinal interview study of adolescent and family caregiver dyads recruited through a pediatric‐to‐adult HMV transition program jointly established by two collaborating health centers: The Hospital for Sick Children and West Park Healthcare Centre in Toronto, Canada. Eligible dyads were interviewed at three time points: pretransition, transition, and 12‐months posttransition. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using directed content analysis methods. Results Ventilator‐assisted adolescents (VAAs) and caregiver participants perceived a lack of transition readiness in their ability to manage health communication and coordination across multiple adult providers. Transition facilitators included early transition discussion, opportunities for VAAs to speak directly with HMV providers during appointments, receipt of print informational materials regarding adult services, and a joint pediatric‐adult team handover meeting. Modifiable transition barriers included lack of other specialist referrals, insufficient information about adult homecare service funding, and limited involvement of family doctors. Unresolved transition barriers resulted in perceptions of service fragmentation. Conclusions Although the pediatric‐to‐adult HMV transition program conferred benefits service fragmentation was perceived. Transition barriers may be overcome through early planning and staged transition with all specialists, community providers, and the family and adolescent working in collaboration.
Among clinical trials of interventions that aim to modify time spent on mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients there is considerable inconsistency in chosen outcomes and how they are measured. The Core Outcomes in Ventilation Trials (COVenT) study aims to develop a set of core outcomes for use in future ventilation trials in mechanically ventilated adults and children. We will use a mixed methods approach that incorporates a randomised trial nested within a Delphi study and a consensus meeting. Additionally, we will conduct an observational cohort study to evaluate uptake of the core outcome set in published studies at 5 and 10 years following core outcome set publication. The three-round online Delphi study will use a list of outcomes that have been reported previously in a review of ventilation trials. The Delphi panel will include a range of stakeholder groups including patient support groups. The panel will be randomised to one of three feedback methods to assess the impact of the feedback mechanism on subsequent ranking of outcomes. A final consensus meeting will be held with stakeholder representatives to review outcomes. The COVenT study aims to develop a core outcome set for ventilation trials in critical care, explore the best Delphi feedback mechanism for achieving consensus and determine if participation increases use of the core outcome set in the long term.
In 2014, the Ministry of Health of Ontario, Canada, approved a program of public funding for specialist-prescribed mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) devices for home use by individuals with neuromuscular respiratory insufficiency. Since 2014, 1,926 MI-E devices have been provided, exceeding device-use projections. Few studies describe the initial and ongoing education and support needs of home MI-E users and their family caregivers. This study aimed to explore the requirements of initial and ongoing education and support for MI-E device use, user confidence, and barriers and facilitators to home MI-E.
METHODS:
We conducted semi-structured interviews with new (< 6 months) and established (6–48 months) MI-E users and family caregivers. Device users rated their confidence on a numeric rating scale of 1 (not confident) to 10 (very confident).
RESULTS:
We recruited 14 new and 14 established MI-E users and caregivers (including 9 dyads), and we conducted 28 interviews. Both new and established users were highly confident in use of MI-E (mean ± SD scores were 8.8 ± 1.2 and 8.3 ± 2.1, respectively). Overall, the subjects were satisfied with their initial education, which consisted of a 1–2 h one-on-one session at home or in the clinic with a device demonstration and hands-on practice. Subjects viewed hands-on practice and teaching of caregivers as more beneficial than written materials. Ongoing support for device use was variable. Most subjects indicated a lack of specific follow-up, which resulted in uncertainty about whether they were using the MI-E device correctly or whether MI-E was effective. Facilitators to device utilization were ease of use, initial training, support from formal or informal caregivers, and symptom relief. Barriers were inadequate education on MI-E purpose, technique, and benefit; lack of follow-up; and inadequate knowledge of MI-E by nonspecialist health providers.
CONCLUSIONS:
The current model of home MI-E education at initiation meets user and caregiver needs. Better ongoing education and follow-up are needed to sustain the benefits through assessment of MI-E technique and its effectiveness.
To inform design of quality improvement tools specific to patients with prolonged intensive care unit stay, we determined characteristics (format/content), development, implementation and outcomes of published multi-component quality improvement tools used in the intenisve care unit irrespective of length of stay.Scoping review searching electronic databases, trial registries and grey literature (January 2000 to January 2022).We screened 58,378 citations, identifying 96 studies. All tools were designed for use commencing at intensive care unit admission except three tools implemented at 3, 5 or 14 days. We identified 32 studies of locally developed checklists, 28 goal setting/structured communication templates, 23 care bundles and 9 studies of mixed format tools. Most (43 %) tools were designed for use during rounds, fewer tools were designed for use throughout the ICU day (27 %) or stay (9 %). Most studies (55 %) reported process objectives i.e., improving communication, care standardisation, or rounding efficiency. Most common clinical processes quality improvement tools were used to standardise were sedation (62, 65 %), ventilation and weaning (55, 57 %) and analgesia management (58, 60 %). 44 studies reported the effect of the tool on patient outcomes. Of these, only two identified a negative effect; increased length of stay and increased days with pain and delirium.Although we identified numerous quality improvement tools for use in the intensive care unit, few were designed to specifically address actionable processes of care relevant to the unique needs of prolonged stay patients. Tools that address these needs are urgently required.The review protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z8MRE.
Quantification of long-term survival, health care utilization, and costs of prolonged ventilator dependence informs patient/family decision-making, health care policy, and understanding of specialized weaning centers (SWCs) as alternate care models. Our objective was to compare survival trajectory, health care utilization, and costs of SWC survivors with a matched cohort of ≥ 21-d-stay ICU patients.This was a retrospective longitudinal (12 y) case-control study linking to health administrative databases with matching on age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, income quintiles, and days in ICU and hospital in preceding 12 months.We matched 201 SWC subjects to 201 prolonged ICU survivors (402-subject cohort); 42% had a Charlson score of > 4. Risk of death at 12 months was lower in SWC subjects (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70 [95% CI 0.54-0.91]) adjusting for length of hospital admission (HR 1.02 [95% CI 1.00-1.04]) and number of care location transfers (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.75-0.93]). By follow-up end, more SWC subjects died, 149 (73%) versus 127 (62%). We found no difference in discharge to home. At 12 months, acute health care utilization was comparable for the entire cohort, except hospital readmission rates (median interquartile range [IQR] 2 [1-3) vs 1 [1-2] d). Median (IQR) cost 12 months after unit discharge was CAD $68,165 ($19,894-$153,475). 12-month costs were higher in the SWC survivors (CAD $82,874 [$29,942-$224,965] vs CAD $55,574 [$6,572-$128,962], P < .001). SWC survivors had higher community health care utilization. Regression modeling demonstrated cost was associated with stay and care transfers but not SWC admission. Over 12-y follow-up, health care utilization and costs were higher in SWC survivors.SWC admission may confer some medium-term survival advantage; however, this may be influenced by selection bias associated with admission criteria.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)