Annals of intensive care · 2024
Post-intensive care syndrome screening: a French multicentre survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Agbakou Maïté, Combet Margot, Martin Maëlle, Blonz Gauthier, Desmedt Luc, Seguin Amélie, Lemarié Jérémie, Zambon Olivier, Reignier Jean, Lascarrou Jean-Baptiste, Ehrmann Stephan, Canet Emmanuel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), defined as physical, cognitive, and mental-health symptoms persisting long after intensive-care-unit (ICU) discharge, is increasingly recognised as a healthcare priority. Data on screening for PICS are sparse. Our objective here was to describe post-ICU screening in France, with special attention to visit availability and evaluations done during visits.
METHODS: We conducted an online multicentre survey by emailing an anonymous 43-item questionnaire to French ICUs. For each ICU, a single survey was sent to either the head or the intensivist in charge of follow-up visits.
RESULTS: Of 252 ICUs invited to participate, 161 (63.9%) returned the completed survey. Among them, 46 (28.6%) offered follow-up visits. Usually, a single visit led by an intensivist was scheduled 3 to 6 months after ICU discharge. Approximately 50 patients/year/ICU, that is, about 5% of admitted patients, attended post-ICU visits. The main criteria used to select patients for follow-up were ICU stay and/or invasive mechanical ventilation duration longer than 48 h, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among ICUs offering visits, 80% used validated instruments to screen for PICS. Of the 115 ICUs not offering follow-up, 50 (43.5%) indicated an intention to start follow-up within the next year. The main barriers to offering follow-up were lack of available staff and equipment or not viewing PICS screening as a priority. Half the ICUs offering visits worked with an established network of post-ICU care professionals, and another 17% were setting up such a network. Obstacles to network creation were lack of interest among healthcare professionals and lack of specific training in PICS.
CONCLUSION: Only a small minority of ICU survivors received follow-up designed to detect PICS. Less than a third of ICUs offered follow-up visits but nearly another third planned to set up such visits within the next year. Recommendations issued by French health authorities in 2023 can be expected to improve the availability and standardisation of post-ICU follow-up.
METHODS: We conducted an online multicentre survey by emailing an anonymous 43-item questionnaire to French ICUs. For each ICU, a single survey was sent to either the head or the intensivist in charge of follow-up visits.
RESULTS: Of 252 ICUs invited to participate, 161 (63.9%) returned the completed survey. Among them, 46 (28.6%) offered follow-up visits. Usually, a single visit led by an intensivist was scheduled 3 to 6 months after ICU discharge. Approximately 50 patients/year/ICU, that is, about 5% of admitted patients, attended post-ICU visits. The main criteria used to select patients for follow-up were ICU stay and/or invasive mechanical ventilation duration longer than 48 h, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among ICUs offering visits, 80% used validated instruments to screen for PICS. Of the 115 ICUs not offering follow-up, 50 (43.5%) indicated an intention to start follow-up within the next year. The main barriers to offering follow-up were lack of available staff and equipment or not viewing PICS screening as a priority. Half the ICUs offering visits worked with an established network of post-ICU care professionals, and another 17% were setting up such a network. Obstacles to network creation were lack of interest among healthcare professionals and lack of specific training in PICS.
CONCLUSION: Only a small minority of ICU survivors received follow-up designed to detect PICS. Less than a third of ICUs offered follow-up visits but nearly another third planned to set up such visits within the next year. Recommendations issued by French health authorities in 2023 can be expected to improve the availability and standardisation of post-ICU follow-up.