Background The outcome focus for survivors of critical care has shifted from mortality to patient-centered outcomes. Multidimensional outcome assessments performed in critically ill patients typically exclude those with primary neurological injuries. Objective To determine the feasibility of measurements of physical function, cognition, and quality of life in patients requiring neurocritical care. Methods This evaluation of a quality improvement initiative involved all patients admitted to the neuroscience intensive care unit at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Interventions Telephone assessments of physical function (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended and modified Rankin Scale scores), cognition (modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status), and quality of life (5-level EQ-5D) were conducted between 3 and 6 months after admission. Results During the 2-week pilot phase, the authors contacted and completed data entry for all patients admitted to the neuroscience intensive care unit over a 2-week period in approximately 11 hours. During the 18-month implementation phase, the authors followed 1324 patients at a mean (SD) time of 4.4 (0.8) months after admission. Mortality at follow-up was 38.9%; 74.8% of these patients underwent withdrawal of care. The overall loss to follow-up rate was 23.6%. Among all patients contacted, 94% were available by the second attempt to interview them by telephone. Conclusions Obtaining multidimensional outcome assessments by telephone across a diverse population of neurocritically ill patients was feasible and efficient. The sample was similar to those in other cohort studies in the neurocritical care population, and the loss to follow-up rate was comparable with that of the general critical care population.

INTRODUCTION: A qualitative assessment of discharge resource needs is important for developing evidence-based care improvements in neurocritically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a quality improvement initiative at an academic hospital and included all patients admitted to the neuroscience intensive care unit (ICU) during an 18-month period. Telephone assessments were made at 3 to 6 months after admission. Patients or caregivers were asked whether they had adequate resources upon discharge and whether they had any unanswered questions. The content of responses was reviewed by a neurointensivist and a neurocritical care nurse practitioner. A structured codebook was developed, organized into themes, and applied to the responses. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients or caregivers responded regarding access to resources at discharge with 114 individual codable responses. Responses centered around 5 themes with 23 unique codes: satisfied, needs improvement, dissatisfied, poor post-ICU care, and poor health. The most frequently coded responses were that caregivers believed their loved one had experienced an unclear discharge (n = 11) or premature discharge (n = 12). Two hundred four patients or caregivers responded regarding unanswered questions or additional comments at follow-up, with 516 codable responses. These centered around 6 themes with 26 unique codes: positive experience, negative experience, neutral experience, medical questions, ongoing medical care or concern, or remembrance of time spent in the ICU. The most frequent response was that caregivers or patients stated that they received good care (n = 115). Multiple concerns were brought up, including lack of follow-up after hospitalization (n = 15) and dissatisfaction with post-ICU care (n = 15). CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining qualitative responses after discharge provided insight into the transition from critical care. This could form the basis for an intervention to provide a smoother transition from the ICU to the outpatient setting.