Healthy Aging Brain Care Monitor, Caregiver Version: Screening for Post–Intensive Care Syndrome

Abstract

Background Cognitive impairment is common in intensive care unit survivors, pointing to the potential utility of a caregiver-based tool to screen for post–intensive care syndrome. Objective To validate the Healthy Aging Brain Care Monitor, Caregiver Version (HABC-M CG), as a caregiver-based tool to screen for post–intensive care syndrome. Methods A total of 116 patients who survived a stay in the intensive care unit completed standardized assessments of cognition, psychological symptoms, and physical functioning, and their caregivers completed the HABC-M CG. The Cronbach α was used to measure the internal consistency of the scale items. Validity of the HABC-M CG versus comparison tests was measured using the Spearman rank correlation. Generalized linear models were used to adjust for age, sex, and education level. Results The total scale and all subscales of the HABC-M CG showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.88-0.93). Scores on the psychological subscale correlated with standardized measures of depressive symptoms (Spearman ρ = 0.58). Scores on the cognitive subscale correlated with the Mini-Mental State Examination score (Spearman ρ = −0.33). Scores on the functional subscale correlated with scores on the Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (Spearman ρ = −0.36). Conclusion The HABC-M CG is a valid informant-based clinical tool for the assessment of symptoms of post– intensive care syndrome.

Post-intensive care screening: French translation and validation of the Healthy Aging Brain Care-Monitor, hybrid version

“…Measurement properties of the HABC-M-HV-F seem consistent with those obtained from the original versions of the HABC-M in PICS context [ 7 , 8 ]. For these versions, authors observed similar internal consistency, and similar findings regarding convergent validity.…”

“…Two versions were developed and validated: The Caregiver Report Version (31-item questionnaire) relied on the observations and perceptions of the patient’s informal caregiver [ 5 ], while the Self-Report Version (27-item questionnaire) was utilized to collect information directly from the patient [ 6 ]. Both versions have recently been validated for PICS screening [ 7 , 8 ]. During the implementation of these tools in daily practice, their authors used an agile implementation process [ 9 ] to meet the changing local needs and to deal with the local context.…”

Mobile Critical Care Recovery Program for Survivors of Acute Respiratory Failure

“…The m-CCRP intervention was led by a nurse care coordinator who conducted patient visits at home and health care facilities, collaborated weekly with the m-CCRP interdisciplinary team (critical care physicians, geriatrician, ICU nurse, and neuropsychologist), worked with patients’ physicians, coordinated health care appointments, implemented care plans, and monitored recovery (eMethods in Supplement 2 ). Within 1 week of randomization, the care coordinator assessed patients at their place of residence using the Healthy Aging Brain Care Monitor (HABC-M; scores ranged from 0 to 81, with higher scores indicating higher cognitive, functional, and behavioral symptom burden), 21 , 22 , 23 Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE; scores ranged from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating improved cognition), 24 Timed Up and Go test (scores ≤10 seconds were considered normal, and scores ≥14 seconds suggested high risk of falls), 25 activities of daily living (Katz scale; scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher independence), 26 instrumental activities of daily living (Lawton Scale; scores ranged from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating higher independence), 27 Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; scores ranged from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating higher anxiety and depression), 28 Pain screening tool (Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity [PEG]; scores ranged from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating higher pain), 29 and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sleep Disturbance short form 4a (scores ranged from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating poor sleep). 30 The care coordinator, with input from the m-CCRP team, prepared and delivered the care plan to the patient within 2 weeks of the initial assessment.…”

“…The mean (SD) age of the enrolled study participants was 56.1 (14.4) years, 250 (53.6%) were female, 216 (46.4%) were male, 172 (36.9%) were African American, and 280 (60.1%) were White, 7 were categorized as other (individual numbers are not provided to prevent identification), and the race and ethnicity of 13 patients was unknown. Patients had a median (IQR) APACHE-II score of 25 (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31) and a median (IQR) Charlson Comorbidity index of 2 (1-3) (Table 1).…”