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.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES: The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Thirty-nine RCs, representing a combined 156 hospitals within 29 health systems participated. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: RC demographics, referral criteria, and operating characteristics were collected, including measures used to assess physical, psychologic, and cognitive recoveries. Thirty-nine RC surveys were completed (94% response rate). ICU-RC teams included physicians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and advanced practice providers. Funding sources for ICU-RCs included clinical billing (n = 20, 77%), volunteer staff support (n = 15, 58%), institutional staff/space support (n = 13, 46%), and grant or foundation funding (n = 3, 12%). Forty-six percent of RCs report patient visit durations of 1 hour or longer. ICU-RC teams reported use of validated scales to assess psychologic recovery (93%), physical recovery (89%), and cognitive recovery (86%) more often in standard visits compared with COVID-RC teams (psychologic, 54%; physical, 69%; and cognitive, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Operating structures of RCs vary, though almost all describe modest capacity and reliance on volunteerism and discretionary institutional support. ICU- and COVID-RCs in the United States employ varied funding sources and endorse different assessment measures during visits to guide care coordination. Common features include integration of ICU clinicians, interdisciplinary approach, and focus on severe critical illness. The heterogeneity in RC structures and processes contributes to future research on the optimal structure and process to achieve the best postintensive care syndrome and postacute sequelae of COVID outcomes.