The relationship between person-centred care and the intensive care unit experience of critically ill patients: A multicentre cross-sectional survey

BackgroundPerson-centred care has the potential to improve the patient experience in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the relationship between person-centred care perceived by critically ill patients and their ICU experience has yet to be determined.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between person-centred care and the ICU experience of critically ill patients.MethodsThis study was a multicentre, cross-sectional survey involving 19 ICUs of four university hospitals in Busan, Korea. The survey was conducted from June 2019 to July 2020, and 787 patients who had been admitted to the ICU for more than 24 hours participated. We measured person-centred care using the Person-Centered Critical Care Nursing perceived by Patient Questionnaire. Participants' ICU experience was measured by the Korean version of the Intensive Care Experience Questionnaire that consists of four subscales. We analysed the relationship between person-centred care and each area of the ICU experience using multivariate linear regression.ResultsPerson-centred care was associated with ‘awareness of surroundings’ (β = 0.29, p < .001), ‘frightening experiences’ (β = ?0.31, p < .001), and ‘satisfaction with care’ (β = 0.54, p < .001). However, there was no significant association between person-centred care and ‘recall of experience’.ConclusionsWe observed that person-centred care was positively related to most of the ICU experiences of critically ill patients except for recall of experience. Further studies on developing person-centred nursing interventions are needed.     

Developing a reflection and analysis tool (We-ReAlyse) for readmissions to the intensive care unit: A quality improvement project

BackgroundReadmissions to the intensive care unit are associated with poorer patient outcomes and health prognoses, alongside increased lengths of stay and mortality risk. To improve quality of care and patients’ safety, it is essential to understand influencing factors relevant to specific patient populations and settings. A standardized tool for systematic retrospective analysis of readmissions would help healthcare professionals understand risks and reasons affecting readmissions; however, no such tool exists.PurposeThis study’s purpose was to develop a tool (We-ReAlyse) to analyze readmissions to the intensive care unit from general units by reflecting on affected patients’ pathways from intensive care discharge to readmission. The results will highlight case-specific causes of readmission and potential areas for departmental- and institutional-level improvements.MethodA root cause analysis approach guided this quality improvement project. The tool’s iterative development process included a literature search, a clinical expert panel, and a testing in January and February 2021.ResultsThe We-ReAlyse tool guides healthcare professionals to identify areas for quality improvement by reflecting the patient's pathway from the initial intensive care stay to readmission. Ten readmissions were analyzed by using the We-ReAlyse tool, resulting in key insights about possible root causes like the handover process, patient's care needs, the resources on the general unit and the use of different electronic healthcare record systems.ConclusionsThe We-ReAlyse tool provides a visualization/objectification of issues related to intensive care readmissions, gathering data upon which to base quality improvement interventions. Based on the information on how multi-level risk profiles and knowledge deficits contribute to readmission rates, nurses can target specific quality improvements to reduce those rates.Implications for clinical practice and researchWith the We-ReAlyse tool, we have the opportunity to collect detailed information about ICU readmissions for an in-depth analysis. This will allow health professionals in all involved departments to discuss and either correct or cope with the identified issues. In the long term, this will allow continuous, concerted efforts to reduce and prevent ICU readmissions. To obtain more data for analysis and to further refine and simplify the tool, it may be applied to larger samples of ICU readmissions. Furthermore, to test its generalizability, the tool should be applied to patients from other departments and other hospitals. Adapting it to an electronic version would facilitate the timely and comprehensive collection of necessary information. Finally, the tool’s emphasis comprises reflecting on and analyzing ICU readmissions, allowing clinicians to develop interventions targeting the identified problems. Therefore, future research in this area will require the development and evaluation of potential interventions.     

Informing the standardising of care for prolonged stay patients in the intensive care unit: A scoping review of quality improvement tools

ObjectivesTo 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.Research MethodologyScoping review searching electronic databases, trial registries and grey literature (January 2000 to January 2022).ResultsWe 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.ConclusionAlthough 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.Systematic review registration: The review protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z8MRE     

查尔森合并症指数评分系统评价基础疾病对危重患者预后的影响

目的 探讨查尔森合并症指数(WIC)评分系统评价基础疾病对于重症监护病房(ICU)危重患者28 d死亡风险的影响.方法 单中心、回顾性分析上海长征医院2009年1月至2011年10月ICU 406例危重病患者的临床信息,按照28 d治疗转归分为死亡组(104例)和存活组(302例);记录一般临床资料;计算入院时WIC评分和入院24h急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)评分.采用logistic回归分析影响患者预后的因素.结果 与存活组比较,死亡组患者年龄、WIC评分、APACHEⅡ评分、严重脓毒症的比例及主要致病因素如肺部感染的比例均较高,多发伤的比例较低.单因素分析显示,年龄、WIC评分、APACHEⅡ评分、肺部感染、多发伤、严重脓毒症与患者28 d预后相关.多因素logistic回归分析提示,WIC评分[优势比(OR)=1.538,95％可信区间(95％CI)为1.265 ～ 1.869,P=0.000]、APACHEⅡ评分(OR=1.193,95％CI为1.137～1.252,P=0.000)、肺部感染(OR=0.546,95％CI为0.304～0.982,P=0.043)、严重脓毒症(OR=0.178,95％CI为0.098 ～ 0.323,P=0.000)与患者28 d预后独立相关.WIC评分、APACHEⅡ评分及二者合并后预测预后的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线)下面积[AUC(95％CI)]依次为0.657 (0.592～ 0.722)、0.790(0.739 ～ 0.841)、0.821(0.772 ～ 0.869).结论 WIC评分系统可以较好地评价ICU危重患者的28 d预后.     

Patient experience of necrotising soft-tissue infection from diagnosis to six months after intensive care unit stay: A qualitative content analysis

IntroductionNecrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI) is a severe, life-threatening condition requiring immediate diagnosis and treatment to avoid widespread tissue destruction and death. Current research seeks to explain the complex interaction between patient and disease agent, whereas only few studies have addressed the patient perspective.ObjectiveThe present study aimed to describe the patient experience of NSTI in the first six months after diagnosis.MethodsThe study had a qualitative design with patient involvement. We interviewed 27 NSTI survivors at six months after diagnosis and applied content analysis to capture their experiences. Patients were recruited from two referral centers in Sweden and one in Denmark.FindingsWe identified three categories representing chronological stages of the illness trajectory depicting pivotal patient experiences: regaining awareness in the intensive care unit, transitioning to the ward, and returning home to normal life. Fear of infection or reinfection permeated all stages of the trajectory. Each stage was characterized by ambivalence: at first the relief of being alive and distress of serious illness, then the relief of independence and distress of abandonment, and finally the relief of being home and distress of still being dependent on others.ConclusionFear of infection and reinfection during and after hospitalization characterized lives of NSTI survivors and their family. This fear was potentially debilitating in daily life, working life and social life. Healthcare professionals need to be aware of these modifiable factors to help alleviate the concerns of patient and family throughout the illness trajectory.     

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Relocation Stress Syndrome Scale-Short Form for patients transferred from adult intensive care units to general wards

ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop the Relocation Stress Syndrome Scale-Short Form as an assessment tool for relocation stress experienced by intensive care unit patients after transfer to general wards.MethodsThis study included 535 intensive care unit patients at two tertiary care hospitals in South Korea from May to December 2018. Data were collected through face-to-face interview, using a structured questionnaire. Study 1 was conducted to estimate the factorial structure, and reliability of the scale. Study 2 was conducted to confirm the factorial structure of the scale.Main outcomesStudy 1 found that the new instrument had a good reliability (α = 0.92) and validity. In study 2, confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-factor structure and the scale continued to demonstrate good psychometric properties. The criterion validity showed that a low level of relocation stress syndrome was associated with higher satisfaction with the transfer process (r = −0.58, p < .001) and good general health status (r = −0.51, p < .001).ConclusionThe 10-item Relocation Stress Syndrome Scale was developed with appropriate validity and reliability. This scale can be used to assess relocation stress of patients in transition periods. This new scale requires cross-cultural validation.     

Risk prediction using the National Early Warning Score and the Worthing Physiological Scoring System in patients who were transported to the Intensive Care Unit from the Emergency Department: A cohort study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the value of the National Early Warning Score and Worthing Physiological Scoring System for predicting changes in the condition of critical cases during transfer from the emergency department to the intensive care unit.MethodsThis prospective single-centre study was conducted at a 1759-bed hospital in Beijing. We recorded the vital signs in the cases before leaving the emergency department and their changes in condition during transit.ResultsA total of 258 critically ill cases were included. Forty-four cases (17.05%) exhibited changes in their condition during transit. Compared with cases with NEWS ≤ 5, cases with NEWS > 5 were more likely to experience changes with an OR of 5.744 (95% CI 2.888–11.426). Compared with cases with WPS ≤ 2, cases with WPS > 2 were more likely to experience changes with an OR of 7.217 (95% CI 3.575–14.569). The difference between the areas under the curve of the NEWS (0.751 ± 0.045) and the WPS (0.736 ± 0.045) was not statistically significant (P = 0.4518).ConclusionIn our study, the Worthing Physiological Scoring System and National Early Warning Score both exhibited good discriminatory power, but the Worthing Physiological Scoring System is simpler to use and more suitable for use in a busy emergency department.