Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Haines, Kimberley J.
• Sevin, Carla M.
• Hibbert, Elizabeth
• Boehm, Leanne M.
• Aparanji, Krishna
• Bakhru, Rita N.
• Bastin, Anthony J.
• Beesley, Sarah J.
• Butcher, Brad W.
• Drumright, Kelly
• Eaton, Tammy L.
• Farley, Thomas
• Firshman, Penelope
• Fritschle, Andrew
• Holdsworth, Clare
• Hope, Aluko A.
• Johnson, Annie
• Kenes, Michael T.
• Khan, Babar A.
• Kloos, Janet A.
• Kross, Erin K.
• MacLeod-Smith, Belinda J.
• Mactavish, Pamela
• Meyer, Joel
• Montgomery-Yates, Ashley
• Quasim, Tara
• Saft, Howard L.
• Slack, Andrew
• Stollings, Joanna
• Weinhouse, Gerald
• Whitten, Jessica
• Netzer, Giora
• Hopkins, Ramona O.
• Mikkelsen, Mark E.
• Iwashyna, Theodore J.
• McPeake, Joanne

Titel

Key mechanisms by which post-ICU activities can improve in-ICU care: results of the international THRIVE collaboratives

Ist Teil von

• Intensive care medicine, 2019-07, Vol.45 (7), p.939-947

Ort / Verlag

Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Erscheinungsjahr

2019

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Objective To identify the key mechanisms that clinicians perceive improve care in the intensive care unit (ICU), as a result of their involvement in post-ICU programs. Methods Qualitative inquiry via focus groups and interviews with members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s THRIVE collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support). Framework analysis was used to synthesize and interpret the data. Results Five key mechanisms were identified as drivers of improvement back into the ICU: (1) identifying otherwise unseen targets for ICU quality improvement or education programs—new ideas for quality improvement were generated and greater attention paid to detail in clinical care. (2) Creating a new role for survivors in the ICU—former patients and family members adopted an advocacy or peer volunteer role. (3) Inviting critical care providers to the post-ICU program to educate, sensitize, and motivate them—clinician peers and trainees were invited to attend as a helpful learning strategy to gain insights into post-ICU care requirements. (4) Changing clinician’s own understanding of patient experience—there appeared to be a direct individual benefit from working in post-ICU programs. (5) Improving morale and meaningfulness of ICU work—this was achieved by closing the feedback loop to ICU clinicians regarding patient and family outcomes. Conclusions The follow-up of patients and families in post-ICU care settings is perceived to improve care within the ICU via five key mechanisms. Further research is required in this novel area.