Background: After critical illness, new or worsening impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health function are common among patients who have survived. Who should be screened for long-term impairments, what tools to use, and when, remain unclear. Objectives: Provide pragmatic recommendations to clinicians caring for adult survivors of critical illness related to screening for post-discharge impairments. Participants: 31 international experts in risk-stratification and assessment of survivors of critical illness, including practitioners involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's (SCCM) Thrive Post-ICU Collaboratives, survivors of critical illness, and clinical researchers. Design: SCCM consensus conference on post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) prediction and assessment, held in Dallas, in May, 2019.Meeting Outcomes: We concluded that existing tools are insufficient to reliably predict PICS. We identified factors before (e.g., frailty, pre-existing functional impairments), during (e.g., duration of delirium, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome), and after (e.g., early symptoms of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)) critical illness that can be used to identify patients at high-risk for cognitive, mental health, and physical impairments after critical illness in whom screening is recommended. We recommend serial assessments, beginning within 2-4 weeks of hospital discharge, using the following screening tools: Montreal Cognitive Assessment

Post-intensive care syndrome: impact, prevention, and management Millions of people worldwide have survived an admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and the number of survivors is growing [1]. While these patients have survived a life-threatening illness, most survivors suffer important long-term complications [2]. Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is a term that describes the cognitive, psychological, physical and other consequences that plague ICU survivors [3, 4]. Our aim is to discuss the prevalence, risk factors, impact, prevention and management of PICS.

Author contributions: KH, JMP, LB, CS had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All other authors contributed substantially to the study design, data analysis and interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript.

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-019-05647-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: To understand from the perspective of patients who did, and did not attend ICU recovery programs, what were the most important components of successful programs and how should they be organized. Design: International, qualitative study. Setting: Fourteen hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Patients: We conducted 66 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of patients, 52 of whom had used an ICU recovery program and 14 whom had not. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Using content analysis, prevalent themes were documented to understand what improved their outcomes. Contrasting quotes from patients who had not received certain aspects of care were used to identify perceived differential effectiveness. Successful ICU recovery programs had five key components: 1) Continuity of care; 2) Improving symptom status; 3) Normalization and expectation management; 4) Internal and external validation of progress; and 5) Reducing feelings of guilt and helplessness. The delivery of care which achieved these goals was facilitated by early involvement (even before hospital discharge), direct involvement of ICU staff, and a focus on integration across traditional disease, symptom, and social welfare needs. Conclusions: In this multicenter study, conducted across three continents, patients identified specific and reproducible modes of benefit derived from ICU recovery programs, which could be the target of future intervention refinement.