Physiotherapy, Dietetics and Occupational Therapy have been collaborating over recent years to develop an optimal healthcare programme for patients with Post Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS). This case is an example of PICS symptomatology and focuses on the collaboration between Physiotherapy and Dietetics. What is PICS? Owing to healthcare improvements, more and more patients are surviving the intensive Care Unit (ICU), and recovery during and after ICU stay has been receiving more attention [1, 2]. Approximately 30% of the patients admitted to an ICU have persistent symptoms including muscle weakness, reduced walking ability, fatigue, concentration deficits, memory problems, malnutrition, sleep and mood disorders sometimes even years after discharge [3-8]. Since 2012, this combination of physical, cognitive and psychiatric manifestations and reduced quality of life after staying in an ICU has been recognised as Post Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) [9]. The impact of PICS is often not limited to the patient as it may also impact the mental status of the patient’s immediate family. This is known as PICS-Family (PICS-F) [10-12]. Treatment of PICS: Approximately 80% of PICS patients need primary care physiotherapy. Physiotherapists and GPs are often the only primary care professionals involved in the recovery process of these patients after hospital discharge [13, 14]. Both patients and healthcare professionals report a number of difficulties, e.g. limited transmural continuity in healthcare, coordination of multidisciplinary activities, supportive treatment guidelines and specific knowledge of pathology, treatment and prognosis. Patients report that they are not adequately supported when resuming their professional activities and that medical and allied healthcare treatments do not fully meet their needs at that time [15-18]. The REACH project: In order to improve the situation, the REACH project (REhabilitation After Critical illness and Hospital discharge) was started in Amsterdam region in the Netherlands. Within REACH, a Community of Practice – consisting of professionals (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians), those who live or have lived with the condition and researchers – has developed a transmural rehab programme. A special attribute of this programme is the integration of the concept of “positive health”. The case in this article describes the treatment of a PICS patient treated within the REACH network.
DOCUMENT
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).
DOCUMENT
Background: after hospitalisation for cardiac disease, older patients are at high risk of readmission and death. Objective: the cardiac care bridge (CCB) transitional care programme evaluated the impact of combining case management, disease management and home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on hospital readmission and mortality. Design: single-blind, randomised clinical trial. Setting: the trial was conducted in six hospitals in the Netherlands between June 2017 and March 2020. Community-based nurses and physical therapists continued care post-discharge. Subjects: cardiac patients ≥ 70 years were eligible if they were at high risk of functional loss or if they had had an unplanned hospital admission in the previous 6 months. Methods: the intervention group received a comprehensive geriatric assessment-based integrated care plan, a face-to-face handover with the community nurse before discharge and follow-up home visits. The community nurse collaborated with a pharmacist and participants received home-based CR from a physical therapist. The primary composite outcome was first all-cause unplanned readmission or mortality at 6 months. Results: in total, 306 participants were included. Mean age was 82.4 (standard deviation 6.3), 58% had heart failure and 92% were acutely hospitalised. 67% of the intervention key-elements were delivered. The composite outcome incidence was 54.2% (83/153) in the intervention group and 47.7% (73/153) in the control group (risk differences 6.5% [95% confidence intervals, CI -4.7 to 18%], risk ratios 1.14 [95% CI 0.91-1.42], P = 0.253). The study was discontinued prematurely due to implementation activities in usual care. Conclusion: in high-risk older cardiac patients, the CCB programme did not reduce hospital readmission or mortality within 6 months.
DOCUMENT
