Objectives To test the hypothesis that nurse led follow-up programmes are effective and cost effective in improving quality of life after discharge from intensive care.Design A pragmatic, non-blinded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Setting Three UK hospitals (two teaching hospitals and one district general hospital).Participants 286 patients aged ≥18 years were recruited after discharge from intensive care between September 2006 and October 2007.Intervention Nurse led intensive care follow-up programmes versus standard care.Main outcome measure(s) Health related quality of life (measured with the SF-36 questionnaire) at 12 months after randomisation. A cost effectiveness analysis was also performed.Results 286 patients were recruited and 192 completed one year follow-up. At 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SF-36 physical component score (mean 42.0 (SD 10.6) v 40.8 (SD 11.9), effect size 1.1 (95% CI −1.9 to 4.2), P=0.46) or the SF-36 mental component score (effect size 0.4 (−3.0 to 3.7), P=0.83). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes or subgroup analyses. Follow-up programmes were significantly more costly than standard care and are unlikely to be considered cost effective.Conclusions A nurse led intensive care follow-up programme showed no evidence of being effective or cost effective in improving patients' quality of life in the year after discharge from intensive care. Further work should focus on the roles of early physical rehabilitation, delirium, cognitive dysfunction, and relatives in recovery from critical illness. Intensive care units should review their follow-up programmes in light of these results.Trial registration ISRCTN 24294750

IMPORTANCE Critical illness results in disability and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but the optimum timing and components of rehabilitation are uncertain. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of increasing physical and nutritional rehabilitation plus information delivered during the post-intensive care unit (ICU) acute hospital stay by dedicated rehabilitation assistants on subsequent mobility, HRQOL, and prevalent disabilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A parallel group, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment at 2 hospitals in Edinburgh, Scotland, of 240 patients discharged from the ICU between December 1, 2010, and January 31, 2013, who required at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Analysis for the primary outcome and other 3-month outcomes was performed between June and August 2013; for the 6-and 12-month outcomes and the health economic evaluation, between March and April 2014. INTERVENTIONS During the post-ICU hospital stay, both groups received physiotherapy and dietetic, occupational, and speech/language therapy, but patients in the intervention group received rehabilitation that typically increased the frequency of mobility and exercise therapies 2-to 3-fold, increased dietetic assessment and treatment, used individualized goal setting, and provided greater illness-specific information. Intervention group therapy was coordinated and delivered by a dedicated rehabilitation practitioner. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) (range 0-15) at 3 months; higher scores indicate greater mobility. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, psychological outcomes, self-reported symptoms, patient experience, and cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up (completed in February 2014). RESULTS Median RMI at randomization was 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6) and at 3 months was 13 (IQR, 10-14) for the intervention and usual care groups (mean difference, −0.2 [95% CI, −1.3 to 0.9; P = .71]). The HRQOL scores were unchanged by the intervention (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, −0.1 [95% CI, −3.3 to 3.1; P = .96]; and in the Mental Component Summary score, 0.2 [95% CI, −3.4 to 3.8; P = .91]). No differences were found for self-reported symptoms of fatigue, pain, appetite, joint stiffness, or breathlessness. Levels of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress were similar, as were hand grip strength and the timed Up & Go test. No differences were found at the 6-or 12-month follow-up for any outcome measures. However, patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with physiotherapy, nutritional support, coordination of care, and information provision. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Post-ICU hospital-based rehabilitation, including increased physical and nutritional therapy plus information provision, did not improve physical recovery or HRQOL, but improved patient satisfaction with many aspects of recovery.

We found a high incidence of symptoms consistent with PTSD 3 months after ICU discharge in this general ICU cohort. This was associated with younger patients and those who visited their GP or a mental health professional complaining of psychological symptoms. Further research and a greater liaison between ICU staff and family practitioners and mental health practitioners is required to better identify individuals at risk and reduce psychological morbidity in this group.