Objective To determine if a quality improvement (QI) intervention improves sleep and delirium/cognition. Design Observational, pre-post design. Setting A tertiary academic hospital in the US. Patients 300 medical ICU (MICU) patients. Interventions This MICU-wide project involved a “usual care” baseline stage, followed by a QI stage incorporating multi-faceted sleep-promoting interventions implemented with the aid of daily reminder checklists for ICU staff. Measurements and Main Results Primary ICU outcomes were perceived sleep quality and noise ratings (measured on a 0-100 scale using the valid and reliable Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire [RCSQ]) and delirium/coma-free days. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay and mortality. Post-ICU measures of cognition and perceived sleep quality were evaluated in an ICU patient subset. During the baseline and sleep QI stages there were 122 and 178 patients, respectively, with >1 night in the ICU, accounting for 634 and 826 patient-days. Within the groups, 78 (63.9%) and 83 (46.6%) patients received mechanical ventilation. Over the 826 patient-day QI period, checklist item completion rates ranged from 86-94%. In multivariable regression analysis of the QI vs. baseline stages, improvements in overall RCSQ sleep quality ratings did not reach statistical significance, but there were significant improvements in daily noise ratings (mean ± standard deviation: 65.9 ± 26.6 vs. 60.5 ± 26.3, P=0.001), incidence of delirium/coma (odds ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.89; P=0.02), and daily delirium/coma-free status (odds ratio: 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.58; P=0.03). Improvements in secondary ICU outcomes and post-ICU outcomes did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions An ICU-wide QI intervention to improve sleep and delirium is feasible and associated with significant improvements in perceived nighttime noise, incidence of delirium/coma, and daily delirium/coma-free status. Improvement in perceived sleep quality did not reach statistical significance.

Critically ill patients frequently experience poor sleep, characterized by frequent disruptions, loss of circadian rhythms, and a paucity of time spent in restorative sleep stages. Factors that are associated with sleep disruption in the intensive care unit (ICU) include patient-ventilator dysynchrony, medications, patient care interactions, and environmental noise and light. As the field of critical care increasingly focuses on patients' physical and psychological outcomes following critical illness, understanding the potential contribution of ICU-related sleep disruption on patient recovery is an important area of investigation. This review article summarizes the literature regarding sleep architecture and measurement in the critically ill, causes of ICU sleep fragmentation, and potential implications of ICU-related sleep disruption on patients' recovery from critical illness. With this background information, strategies to optimize sleep in the ICU are also discussed.

BackgroundSurvivors of critical illness often experience poor outcomes after hospitalisation, including delayed return to work, which carries substantial economic consequences.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of return to work after critical illness.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library from 1970 to February 2018. Data were extracted, in duplicate, and random-effects meta-regression used to obtain pooled estimates.ResultsFifty-two studies evaluated return to work in 10 015 previously employed survivors of critical illness, over a median (IQR) follow-up of 12 (6.25–38.5) months. By 1–3, 12 and 42–60 months’ follow-up, pooled return to work prevalence (95% CI) was 36% (23% to 49%), 60% (50% to 69%) and 68% (51% to 85%), respectively (τ2=0.55, I2=87%, p=0.03). No significant difference was observed based on diagnosis (acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) vs non-ARDS) or region (Europe vs North America vs Australia/New Zealand), but was observed when comparing mode of employment evaluation (in-person vs telephone vs mail). Following return to work, 20%–36% of survivors experienced job loss, 17%–66% occupation change and 5%–84% worsening employment status (eg, fewer work hours). Potential risk factors for delayed return to work include pre-existing comorbidities and post-hospital impairments (eg, mental health).ConclusionApproximately two-thirds, two-fifths and one-third of previously employed intensive care unit survivors are jobless up to 3, 12 and 60 months following hospital discharge. Survivors returning to work often experience job loss, occupation change or worse employment status. Interventions should be designed and evaluated to reduce the burden of this common and important problem for survivors of critical illness.Trial registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018093135.

A 2007 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified night-shift work as possibly carcinogenic to humans, emphasizing, in particular, its association with breast cancer. Since this report and the publication of the last systematic review on this topic, several new studies have examined this association. Hence, to provide a comprehensive update on this topic, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science (Conference Proceedings), and ProQuest dissertations for studies published before March 1, 2012, along with a manual search of articles that cited or referenced the included studies. Included were observational case-control or cohort studies examining the association between night-shift work and breast carcinogenesis in women, which all ascertained and quantified night-shift work exposure. The search yielded 15 eligible studies for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Using random-effects models, the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of breast cancer for individuals with ever night-shift work exposure was 1.21 (95 % CI, 1.00-1.47, p = 0.056, I (2) = 76 %), for short-term night-shift workers (<8 years) was 1.13 (95 % CI, 0.97-1.32, p = 0.11, I (2) = 79 %), and for long-term night-shift workers (≥8 years) was 1.04 (95 % CI, 0.92-1.18, p = 0.51, I (2) = 55 %), with substantial between-study heterogeneity observed in all analyses. Subgroup analyses suggested that flight attendants with international or overnight work exposure and nurses working night-shifts long-term were at increased risk of breast cancer, however, these findings were limited by unmeasured confounding. Overall, given substantial heterogeneity observed between studies in this meta-analysis, we conclude there is weak evidence to support previous reports that night-shift work is associated with increased breast cancer risk.