Dataset Information

Support and follow-up needs of patients discharged from intensive care after severe COVID-19: a mixed-methods study of the views of UK general practitioners and intensive care staff during the pandemic's first wave.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify follow-up services planned for patients with COVID-19 discharged from intensive care unit (ICU) and to explore the views of ICU staff and general practitioners (GPs) regarding these patients' future needs and care coordination.

Design

This is a sequential mixed-methods study using online surveys and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey data were descriptively analysed.

Setting

GP surgeries and acute National Health Service Trusts in the UK.

Participants

GPs and clinicians leading care for patients discharged from ICU.

Primary and secondary outcomes

Usual follow-up practice after ICU discharge, changes in follow-up during the pandemic, and GP awareness of follow-up and support needs of patients discharged from ICU.

Results

We obtained 170 survey responses and conducted 23 interviews. Over 60% of GPs were unaware of the follow-up services generally provided by their local hospitals and whether or not these were functioning during the pandemic. Eighty per cent of ICUs reported some form of follow-up services, with 25% of these suspending provision during the peak of the pandemic and over half modifying their provision (usually to provide the service remotely). Common themes relating to barriers to provision of follow-up were funding complexities, remit and expertise, and communication between ICU and community services. Discharge documentation was described as poor and lacking key information. Both groups mentioned difficulties accessing services in the community and lack of clarity about who was responsible for referrals and follow-up.

Conclusions

The pandemic has highlighted long-standing issues of continuity of care and complex funding streams for post-ICU follow-up care. The large cohort of ICU patients admitted due to COVID-19 highlights the need for improved follow-up services and communication between specialists and GPs, not only for patients with COVID-19, but for all those discharged from ICU.

SUBMITTER: Castro-Avila AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8117472 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo understand current practices, challenges, and opportunities for a systematic assessment of family caregivers' needs and risks in primary care.DesignQualitative study consisting of in-depth semi-structured interviews.SettingFour primary care practices located in urban and rural settings.ParticipantsPrimary care clinicians, staff, and administrators (N = 30), as well as older adult patients and family caregivers (N = 40), recruited using purposive and maximum variation sampling.MeasurementsCurrent experiences, challenges, and opportunities for integrating standardized caregiver assessment into primary care delivery. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method of data analysis.ResultsParticipating clinicians had been in practice for an average of 12.8 years (range = 1-36 y). Patients had a mean age of 84.0 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.7); caregivers had a mean age of 67.0 years (SD = 9.3). There was wide variability in current practices for identifying caregivers' needs and risks, encompassing direct and indirect approaches, when such issues are considered. Participants posited that integrating standardized caregiver assessment into primary care delivery could help improve patient care, enhance clinician-caregiver communication, and validate caregivers' efforts. Barriers to assessment included insufficient time and reimbursement, liability concerns, lack of awareness of community resources, and concerns about patient autonomy. To facilitate future uptake of caregiver assessment, participants recommended brief self-administered assessment tools and post-screen discussions with practice staff.ConclusionIdentification of caregivers' needs and risks in primary care is highly variable. Integration of standardized caregiver assessment into practice requires coordinated changes to policy, revision of practice workflows, and an interdisciplinary approach to the development of appropriate assessment tools. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1262-1270, 2020.

Project description:BackgroundThe potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics and related fields.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs') opinions about the potential impact of future technology on key tasks in primary care.MethodsIn June 2018, we conducted a Web-based survey of 720 UK GPs' opinions about the likelihood of future technology to fully replace GPs in performing 6 key primary care tasks, and, if respondents considered replacement for a particular task likely, to estimate how soon the technological capacity might emerge. This study involved qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to an open-ended question in the survey.ResultsComments were classified into 3 major categories in relation to primary care: (1) limitations of future technology, (2) potential benefits of future technology, and (3) social and ethical concerns. Perceived limitations included the beliefs that communication and empathy are exclusively human competencies; many GPs also considered clinical reasoning and the ability to provide value-based care as necessitating physicians' judgments. Perceived benefits of technology included expectations about improved efficiencies, in particular with respect to the reduction of administrative burdens on physicians. Social and ethical concerns encompassed multiple, divergent themes including the need to train more doctors to overcome workforce shortfalls and misgivings about the acceptability of future technology to patients. However, some GPs believed that the failure to adopt technological innovations could incur harms to both patients and physicians.ConclusionsThis study presents timely information on physicians' views about the scope of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary care. Overwhelmingly, GPs considered the potential of AI to be limited. These views differ from the predictions of biomedical informaticians. More extensive, stand-alone qualitative work would provide a more in-depth understanding of GPs' views.

Project description:Background:The TITRATE trial seeks to test whether intensive management is valuable in achieving disease remission in moderately active rheumatoid arthritis. Intensive management is a complex intervention consisting of: 1) 12 x monthly appointments, 2) tailored 'treatment support' based on motivational interviewing techniques, 3) optimised medication (including the opportunity for biologics), 4) provision of a Patient Handbook, and 5) shared treatment planning. This study aims to understand: a) patients' and practitioners' views on the feasibility and acceptability of intensive management, and b) patients' and practitioners' experience of receiving/providing intensive management. Methods:A qualitative study, nested within a randomised controlled trial. Participants were patients (n =?15) in the intensive management arm of the trial and rheumatology practitioners (n =?16) providing the intensive management intervention, from 18/42 clinics across England. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis and iterative categorization. Results:Monthly appointments were largely acceptable to both groups who cited several treatment benefits (e.g. regular review of medication, practitioners built close relationships with patients). Practitioners were 'fairly confident' using the motivational interviewing techniques. Learning to pace was the most commonly reported self-management technique that patients and healthcare professionals worked on together, followed by gaining control over pain and fatigue. Practitioners liked having the option to offer biologics to patients with moderate RA. Most patients found the optimised medication (following monthly joint assessment) helpful and side-effects experienced were resolved. Variation existed in the extent to which patients engaged with the Patient Handbook and shared treatment planning, with those who did engage doing so in the early stages. Conclusions:Feedback from patient participants about the intensive management intervention was positive. They found increased medication helpful. Continuity of care with the same healthcare professional at regular intensive management sessions, and the treatment support provided, were highly rated. Feedback from practitioners indicated that intensive management training is feasible. Evidence from the interviews showed that some practitioners applied motivational interviewing techniques during standard care appointments and they would like the opportunity to address lifestyle issues with patients.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, parents whose sick babies are undergoing three days of cooling therapy for hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) are not permitted to cuddle their cooled babies, due to concerns of warming the baby or dislodging breathing tubes or vascular catheters. Parents want to stay and care for their cooled babies and have reported that bonding is adversely affected when they are not permitted to hold them.Design and participantsQualitative interviews with 21 parents of cooled babies in NICU (11 mothers and 10 fathers) and 10 neonatal staff (4 consultants and 6 nurses) explored their views and experiences of an intervention to enable parents to cuddle their cooled babies (CoolCuddle). Thematic analysis methods were used to develop the themes and compare them between parents and staff.ResultsFive themes were produced. Three themes were comparable between parents and staff: Closeness, a sense of normality and reassurance and support. An additional parent theme reflected their mixed feelings about initial participation as they were apprehensive, but felt that it was an amazing opportunity. Parents and staff described the closeness between parents and babies as important for bonding and breastfeeding. Fathers particularly appreciated the opportunity to hold and bond with their infants. Parents valued the reassurance and support received from staff, and the cuddles helped them feel more normal and more like a family at a very stressful time. In a final staff theme, they discussed the skills, number of staff and training needed to undertake CoolCuddle in NICU.ConclusionsParents cuddling their babies during cooling therapy enhanced parent-infant bonding and family-centred care in NICU and was positively received. Adverse perinatal mental health, impaired mother-infant bonding and their effects on the establishment of breastfeeding may be ameliorated by introducing CoolCuddle.Patient contributionOur parent advisors contributed to the interview topic guides and endorsed the themes from the analysis.