No abstract

Objectives: To identify actionable processes of care, quality indicators, or performance measures and their evidence base relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members including themes relating to patient/family experience. Data Sources: Two authors independently searched electronic, systemic review, and trial registration databases (inception to November 2016). Study Selection: We included studies with an ICU length of stay of greater than or equal to 7 days as an inclusion criterion and reported actionable processes of care; quality improvement indicators, measures, or tools; or patient/family experience. We excluded case series/reports of less than 10 patients. Data Extraction: Paired authors independently extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment. Data Synthesis: We screened 13,130 references identifying 114 primary studies and 102 relevant reviews. Primary studies reported data on 24,252 participants; median (interquartile range) sample size of 70 (32–182). We identified 42 distinct actionable processes of care, the most commonly investigated related to categories of 1) weaning methods (21 studies; 27 reviews); 2) rehabilitation, mobilization, and physiotherapy (20 studies; 40 reviews); and 3) provision of information, prognosis, and family communication (14 studies; 11 reviews). Processes with limited evidence were generally more patient-centered categories such as communication, promotion of sleep, symptom management, or family support. Of the 21 randomized controlled trials, only two were considered at low risk of bias across all six domains, whereas just two cohort studies and one qualitative study were considered of high quality. Conclusions: We identified 42 distinct actionable processes of care relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their families, with most frequently studied processes relating to weaning, rehabilitation/mobilization, and family communication. Qualitative studies highlighted the need to address psychologic needs and distressing symptoms as well as enabling patient communication. Our findings are informative for clinicians and decision-makers when planning high-quality patient and family-focused care.

ObjectiveTo characterise the research profile of UK critical care physiotherapists including experience, training needs, and barriers and enablers to engagement in critical care research. ‘Research’ was defined broadly to encompass activities related to quantitative and qualitative studies, service evaluations, clinical audit and quality improvements.DesignClosed-question online survey, with optional free-text responses.SettingUK critical care community.ParticipantsUK critical care physiotherapists, regardless of clinical grade or existing research experience.Results268 eligible survey responses were received during the 12-week study period (21 incomplete, 7.8%). Respondents were based in university-affiliated (n=133, 49.6%) and district general (n=111, 41.4%) hospitals, and generally of senior clinical grade. Nearly two-thirds had postgraduate qualifications at master’s level or above (n=163, 60.8%). Seven had a doctoral-level qualification. Respondents reported a range of research experience, predominantly data acquisition (n=144, 53.7%) and protocol development (n=119, 44.4%). Perceived research training needs were prevalent, including topics of research methods, critical literature appraisal, protocol development and statistical analysis (each reported by ≥50% respondents). Multiple formats for delivery of future research training were identified. Major barriers to research engagement included lack of protected time (n=220, 82.1%), funding (n=177, 66.0%) and perceived experience (n=151, 56.3%). Barriers were conceptually categorised into capability, opportunity and motivation themes. Key enabling strategies centred on greater information provision about clinical research opportunities, access to research training, secondment roles and professional networks.ConclusionsUK critical care physiotherapists are skilled, experienced and motivated to participate in research, including pursuing defined academic research pathways. Nonetheless wide-ranging training needs and notable barriers preclude further involvement. Strategies to harness the unique skills of this profession to enhance the quality, quantity and scope of critical care research, benefiting from a multiprofessional National Clinical Research Network, are required.