Background: Over the past five years, in most hospitals in England and Wales, incident reporting has become well established but it remains unclear how well reports match clinical adverse events. International epidemiological studies of adverse events are based on retrospective, multi-hospital case record review. In this paper the authors describe the use of incident reporting, pharmacist surveillance and local real-time record review for the recognition of clinical risks associated with hospital inpatient care. Methodology: Data on adverse events were collected prospectively on 288 patients discharged from adult acute medical and surgical units in an NHS district general hospital using incident reports, active surveillance of prescription charts by pharmacists and record review at time of discharge. Results: Record review detected 26 adverse events (AEs) and 40 potential adverse events (PAEs) occurring during the index admission. In contrast, in the same patient group, incident reporting detected 11 PAEs and no AEs. Pharmacy surveillance found 10 medication errors all of which were PAEs. There was little overlap in the nature of events detected by the three methods. Conclusion: The findings suggest that incident reporting does not provide an adequate assessment of clinical adverse events and that this method needs to be supplemented with other more systematic forms of data collection. Structured record review, carried out by clinicians, provides an important component of an integrated approach to identifying risk in the context of developing a safety and quality improvement programme.

In critically ill patients, actigraphy is being used more frequently as a surrogate measure of sleep; however, because actigraphy only measures gross motor activity, its ability to estimate sleep is limited by the processing algorithm used. Prior ICU-based studies involving actigraphy were heterogeneous and lacked data regarding actigraphy-based measures of sleep and patient outcomes. Larger, more rigorous and standardized studies are needed to better understand the role of actigraphy in evaluating sleep and sleep-related outcomes in critically ill patients.

Objective:In the intensive care unit (ICU), prolonged inactivity is common, increasing patients’ risk for adverse outcomes, including ICU-acquired weakness. Hence, interventions to minimize inactivity are gaining popularity, highlighting actigraphy, a measure of activity involving a wristwatch-like accelerometer, as a method to inform these efforts. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of studies that used actigraphy to measure patient activity in the ICU setting.Data Sources:We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest from inception until December 2016.Study Selection:Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion. A study was eligible for inclusion if it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and used actigraphy to measure activity in ≥5 ICU patients.Data Extraction:Two reviewers independently performed data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. Abstracted actigraphy-based activity data included total activity time and activity counts.Results:Of 16 studies (607 ICU patients) identified, 14 (88%) were observational, 2 (12%) were randomized control trials, and 5 (31%) were published after 2009. Mean patient activity levels per 15 to 60 second epoch ranged from 25 to 37 daytime and 2 to 19 nighttime movements. Actigraphy was evaluated in the context of ICU and post-ICU outcomes in 11 (69%) and 5 (31%) studies, respectively, and demonstrated potential associations between actigraphy-based activity levels and delirium, sedation, pain, anxiety, time to extubation, and length of stay.Conclusion:Actigraphy has demonstrated that patients are profoundly inactive in the ICU with actigraphy-based activity levels potentially associated with important measures, such as delirium, sedation, and length of stay. Larger and more rigorous studies are needed to further evaluate these associations and the overall utility of actigraphy in the ICU setting.

Background Understanding the long-term sequelae of severe COVID-19 remains limited, particularly in the United States. Objective To examine long-term outcomes of patients who required intensive care unit (ICU) admission for severe COVID-19. Design, Patients, and Main Measures This is a prospective cohort study of patients who had severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU admission in a two-hospital academic health system in Southern California. Patients discharged alive between 3/21/2020 and 12/31/2020 were surveyed approximately 6 months after discharge to assess health-related quality of life using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29 v2.1, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and loneliness scales. A preference-based health utility score (PROPr) was estimated using 7 PROMIS domain scores. Patients were also asked their attitude about receiving aggressive ICU care. Key Results Of 275 patients admitted to the ICU for severe COVID-19, 205 (74.5%) were discharged alive and 132 (64%, median age 59, 46% female) completed surveys a median of 182 days post-discharge. Anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, ability to participate in social activities, pain interference, and cognitive function were not significantly different from the U.S. general population, but physical function (44.2, SD 11.0) was worse. PROPr mean score of 0.46 (SD 0.30, range −0.02 to 0.96 [<0 is worse than dead and 1 represents perfect health]) was slightly lower than the U.S. general population, with an even distribution across the continuum. Poor PROPr was associated with chronic medical conditions and receipt of life-sustaining treatments, but not demographics or social vulnerability. PTSD was suspected in 20% and loneliness in 29% of patients. Ninety-eight percent of patients were glad they received life-saving treatment. Conclusion Most patients who survive severe COVID-19 achieve positive outcomes, with health scores similar to the general population at 6 months post-discharge. However, there is marked heterogeneity in outcomes with a substantial minority reporting severely compromised health.

: With an ever-increasing number of COVID-19 survivors, providers are tasked with addressing the longer lasting symptoms of COVID-19, or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). For critically ill patients, existing knowledge about post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) represents a useful structure for understanding PASC. Post-ICU clinics leverage a multidisciplinary team to evaluate and treat the physical, cognitive, psychological sequelae central to both PICS and PASC in critically ill patients. While management through both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic modalities can be utilized, further research into both the optimal treatment and prevention of PASC represents a key public health imperative.