ObjectiveMany patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Physical impairments are common after ICU stays and are associated with clinical and patient characteristics. To date, it is unknown if physical functioning and health status are comparable between patients in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients in the ICU without COVID-19 3 months after ICU discharge. The primary objective of this study was to compare handgrip strength, physical functioning, and health status between patients in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients in the ICU without COVID-19 3 months after ICU discharge. The second objective was to identify factors associated with physical functioning and health status in patients in the ICU with COVID-19. Methods In this observational, retrospective chart review study, handgrip strength (handheld dynamometer), physical functioning (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function), and health status (EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level) were compared between patients in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients in the ICU without COVID-19 using linear regression. Multilinear regression analyses were used to investigate whether age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities in medical history (Charlson Comorbidity Index), and premorbid function illness (Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients) were associated with these parameters in patients in the ICU with COVID-19. Results In total, 183 patients (N = 92 with COVID-19) were included. No significant between-group differences were found in handgrip strength, physical functioning, and health status 3 months after ICU discharge. The multilinear regression analyses showed a significant association between sex and physical functioning in the COVID-19 group, with better physical functioning in men compared with women. Conclusion Current findings suggest that handgrip strength, physical functioning, and health status are comparable for patients who were in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients who were in the ICU without COVID-19 3 months after ICU discharge. Impact Aftercare in primary or secondary care in the physical domain of postintensive care syndrome after ICU discharge in patients with COVID-19 and in patients without COVID-19 who had an ICU length of stay >48 hours is recommended. Lay Summary Patients who were in the ICU with and without COVID-19 had a lower physical status and health status than healthy people, thus requiring personalized physical rehabilitation. Outpatient aftercare is recommended for patients with an ICU length of stay >48 hours, and functional assessment is recommended 3 months after hospital discharge.
MULTIFILE
AimTo evaluate healthcare professionals' performance and treatment fidelity in the Cardiac Care Bridge (CCB) nurse‐coordinated transitional care intervention in older cardiac patients to understand and interpret the study results.DesignA mixed‐methods process evaluation based on the Medical Research Council Process Evaluation framework.MethodsQuantitative data on intervention key elements were collected from 153 logbooks of all intervention patients. Qualitative data were collected using semi‐structured interviews with 19 CCB professionals (cardiac nurses, community nurses and primary care physical therapists), from June 2017 until October 2018. Qualitative data‐analysis is based on thematic analysis and integrated with quantitative key element outcomes. The analysis was blinded to trial outcomes. Fidelity was defined as the level of intervention adherence.ResultsThe overall intervention fidelity was 67%, ranging from severely low fidelity in the consultation of in‐hospital geriatric teams (17%) to maximum fidelity in the comprehensive geriatric assessment (100%). Main themes of influence in the intervention performance that emerged from the interviews are interdisciplinary collaboration, organizational preconditions, confidence in the programme, time management and patient characteristics. In addition to practical issues, the patient's frailty status and limited motivation were barriers to the intervention.ConclusionAlthough involved healthcare professionals expressed their confidence in the intervention, the fidelity rate was suboptimal. This could have influenced the non‐significant effect of the CCB intervention on the primary composite outcome of readmission and mortality 6 months after randomization. Feasibility of intervention key elements should be reconsidered in relation to experienced barriers and the population.ImpactIn addition to insight in effectiveness, insight in intervention fidelity and performance is necessary to understand the mechanism of impact. This study demonstrates that the suboptimal fidelity was subject to a complex interplay of organizational, professionals' and patients' issues. The results support intervention redesign and inform future development of transitional care interventions in older cardiac patients.
MULTIFILE
SIA developed alongside EIA in the early 1970s as a mechanism to consider the social impacts of planned interventions. The early understanding tended to limit the practical application of SIA to the project level, usually within the context of regulatory frameworks, and primarily considered only the direct negative impacts. However, like other types of impact assessment, SIA has evolved over time and has diverged considerably from EIA.
MULTIFILE
![Health in SIA [social impact assessment]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419022321606573.Health_in_Impact_Assessments_final_version_1_-thumbnail-400x300.png)
