Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of intensive care unit (ICU)–initiated transitional care interventions for patients and families on elements of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) and/or PICS-family (PICS–F). Review method used: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis Sources: The authors searched in biomedical bibliographic databases including PubMed, Embase (OVID), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library and included studies written in English conducted up to October 8, 2020. Review methods: We included (non)randomised controlled trials focussing on ICU-initiated transitional care interventions for patients and families. Two authors conducted selection, quality assessment, and data extraction and synthesis independently. Outcomes were described using the three elements of PICS, which were categorised into (i) physical impairments (pulmonary, neuromuscular, and physical function), (ii) cognitive impairments (executive function, memory, attention, visuo-spatial and mental processing speed), and (iii) psychological health (anxiety, depression, acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression). Results: From the initially identified 5052 articles, five studies were included (i.e., two randomised controlled trials and three nonrandomised controlled trials) with varied transitional care interventions. Quality among the studies differs from moderate to high risk of bias. Evidence from the studies shows no significant differences in favour of transitional care interventions on physical or psychological aspects of PICS-(F). One study with a nurse-led structured follow-up program showed a significant difference in physical function at 3 months. Conclusions: Our review revealed that there is a paucity of research about the effectiveness of transitional care interventions for ICU patients with PICS. All, except one of the identified studies, failed to show a significant effect on the elements of PICS. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to variety and scarcity of data. Prospero registration: CRD42020136589 (available via https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020136589).
1 Maternity services across Europe during the pandemic has undergone changes to limit virus transmission; however, many changes are not evidence-based. 2 Although these changes were introduced to keep women, babies and healthcare staff safe, the exclusion of companions and the separation of mothers and babies is particularly antithetical to a human rights-based approach to quality care. 3 A poll of COST Action 18211 network members showed that inconsistency in the application of restrictions was high, and there were significant deviations from the recommendations of authoritative bodies. 4 Concerns have emerged that restrictions in practice may have longer term negative impacts on mothers and their families and, in particular, may impact on the long-term health of babies. 5 When practice changes deviate from evidence-based frameworks that underpin quality care, they must be monitored, appraised and evaluated to minimise unintended iatrogenic effects.
Introduction: In March 2014, the New South Wales (NSW) Government (Australia) announced the NSW Integrated Care Strategy. In response, a family-centred, population-based, integrated care initiative for vulnerable families and their children in Sydney, Australia was developed. The initiative was called Healthy Homes and Neighbourhoods. A realist translational social epidemiology programme of research and collaborative design is at the foundation of its evaluation. Theory and Method: The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for evaluating complex health interventions was adapted. This has four components, namely 1) development, 2) feasibility/piloting, 3) evaluation and 4) implementation. We adapted the Framework to include: critical realist, theory driven, and continuous improvement approaches. The modified Framework underpins this research and evaluation protocol for Healthy Homes and Neighbourhoods. Discussion: The NSW Health Monitoring and Evaluation Framework did not make provisions for assessment of the programme layers of context, or the effect of programme mechanism at each level. We therefore developed a multilevel approach that uses mixed-method research to examine not only outcomes, but also what is working for whom and why.
LINK
