IntroductionThere is growing evidence of poor mental health and quality of life among survivors of intensive care. However, it is not yet clear to what extent the trauma of life-threatening illness, associated drugs and treatments, or patients' psychological reactions during intensive care contribute to poor psychosocial outcomes. Our aim was to investigate the relative contributions of a broader set of risk factors and outcomes than had previously been considered in a single study.MethodsA prospective cohort study of 157 mixed-diagnosis highest acuity patients was conducted in a large general intensive care unit (ICU). Data on four groups of risk factors (clinical, acute psychological, socio-demographic and chronic health) were collected during ICU admissions. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and quality of life were assessed using validated questionnaires at three months (n =100). Multivariable analysis was used.ResultsAt follow-up, 55% of patients had psychological morbidity: 27.1% (95% CI: 18.3%, 35.9%) had probable PTSD; 46.3% (95% CI: 36.5%, 56.1%) probable depression, and 44.4% (95% CI: 34.6%, 54.2%) anxiety. The strongest clinical risk factor for PTSD was longer duration of sedation (regression coefficient = 0.69 points (95% CI: 0.12, 1.27) per day, scale = 0 to 51). There was a strong association between depression at three months and receiving benzodiazepines in the ICU (mean difference between groups = 6.73 points (95% CI: 1.42, 12.06), scale = 0 to 60). Use of inotropes or vasopressors was correlated with anxiety, and corticosteroids with better physical quality of life.The effects of these clinical risk factors on outcomes were mediated (partially explained) by acute psychological reactions in the ICU. In fully adjusted models, the strongest independent risk factors for PTSD were mood in ICU, intrusive memories in ICU and psychological history. ICU mood, psychological history and socio-economic position were the strongest risk factors for depression.ConclusionsStrikingly high rates of psychological morbidity were found in this cohort of intensive care survivors. The study's key finding was that acute psychological reactions in the ICU were the strongest modifiable risk factors for developing mental illness in the future. The observation that use of different ICU drugs correlated with different psychological outcomes merits further investigation. These findings suggest that psychological interventions, along with pharmacological modifications, could help reduce poor outcomes, including PTSD, after intensive care.

for the POPPI Trial Investigators IMPORTANCE A meta-analysis of outcomes during the 6 months after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge indicate a prevalence for clinically important posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms of 25%.OBJECTIVE To determine whether a nurse-led preventive, complex psychological intervention, initiated in the ICU, reduces patient-reported PTSD symptom severity at 6 months. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA multicenter, parallel-group, cluster-randomized clinical trial with integrated economic and process evaluations conducted in 24 ICUs in the United Kingdom. Participants were critically ill patients who regained mental capacity following receipt of level 3 (intensive) care. A total of 2961 eligible patients were identified from September 2015 to January 2017. A total of 2048 were approached for participation in the ICU, of which 1458 provided informed consent. Follow-up was completed December 2017.INTERVENTIONS Twenty four ICUs were randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group. Intervention ICUs (n = 12; 669 participants) delivered usual care during a baseline period followed by an intervention period. The preventive, complex psychological intervention comprised promotion of a therapeutic ICU environment plus 3 stress support sessions and a relaxation and recovery program delivered by trained ICU nurses to high-risk (acutely stressed) patients. Control ICUs (n = 12; 789 participants) delivered usual care in both baseline and intervention periods. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary clinical outcome was PTSD symptom severity among survivors at 6 months measured using the PTSD Symptom Scale-Self-Report questionnaire (score range, 0-51, with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity; the minimal clinically important difference was considered to be 4.2 points). RESULTSAmong 1458 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 58 [16] years; 599 women [41%]), 1353 (93%) completed the study and were included in the final analysis. At 6 months, the mean PTSD Symptom Scale-Self-Report questionnaire score in intervention ICUs was 11.8 (baseline period) compared with 11.5 (intervention period) (difference, −0.40 [95% CI, −2.46 to 1.67]) and in control ICUs, 10.1 (baseline period) compared with 10.2 (intervention period) (difference, 0.06 [95% CI, −1.74 to 1.85]) between periods. There was no significant difference in PTSD symptom severity at 6 months (treatment effect estimate [difference in differences] of −0.03 [95% CI, −2.58 to 2.52]; P = .98).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients in the ICU, a nurse-led preventive, complex psychological intervention did not significantly reduce patient-reported PTSD symptom severity at 6 months. These findings do not support the use of this psychological intervention.

Background: Caring for a patient with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is associated with poor quality of life and deteriorating health for the caregiver. Methods: This comprehensive review was performed to investigate the current literature on caregiver burden, factors affecting caregiver burden and the effectiveness of different types of intervention. Results: Successful psychoeducational interventions for caregivers have included provision of information about AD, care planning, advice about patient management and the importance of self-care, skills training to aid patient management, stress management training, and problem-solving and decision-making guidance. Conclusion: Interventions that are individually tailored to the caregiver are particularly effective at reducing caregiver burden and should be further investigated. The use of effective pharmacological treatment for the improvement and/or stabilisation of AD symptoms in the patient is also likely to improve caregiver burden.

We found that patients in this in-depth study were more traumatized by frightening hallucinations/delusions than real events, suggesting they may have post-psychosis PTSD, rather than classic PTSD. Interventions are needed to diagnose and treat intensive care hallucinations/delusions, or minimize effects, to prevent PTSD.

Purpose The SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about the potential mental health impact on frontline clinical staff. However, given that poor mental health is common in acute medical staff, we aimed to estimate the additional burden of work involving high exposure to infected patients. Methods We report a rapid review, meta-analysis, and living meta-analysis of studies using validated measures from outbreaks of COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Results A random effects meta-analysis found that high-exposure work is not associated with an increased prevalence of above cut-off scoring (anxiety: RR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.87–1.93, Total N = 12,473; PTSD symptoms: RR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.75–1.78, Total N = 6604; depression: RR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.57–3.95, Total N = 12,224). For continuous scoring, high-exposure work was associated with only a small additional burden of acute mental health problems compared to low-exposure work (anxiety: SMD = 0.16, 95% CI 0.02–0.31, Total N = 6493; PTSD symptoms: SMD = 0.20, 95% CI 0.01–0.40, Total N = 5122; depression: SMD = 0.13, 95% CI -0.04–0.31, Total N = 4022). There was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion Although epidemic and pandemic response work may add only a small additional burden, improving mental health through service management and provision of mental health services should be a priority given that baseline rates of poor mental health are already very high. As new studies emerge, they are being added to a living meta-analysis where all analysis code and data have been made freely available: https://osf.io/zs7ne/.

IntroductionThe psychological impact of critical illness on a patient can be severe, and frequently results in acute distress as well as psychological morbidity after leaving hospital. A UK guideline states that patients should be assessed in critical care units, both for acute distress and risk of future psychological morbidity; but no suitable method for carrying out this assessment exists. The Intensive care psychological assessment tool (IPAT) was developed as a simple, quick screening tool to be used routinely to detect acute distress, and the risk of future psychological morbidity, in critical care units.MethodsA validation study of IPAT was conducted in the critical care unit of a London hospital. Once un-sedated, orientated and alert, critical care patients were assessed with the IPAT and validated tools for distress, to determine the IPAT’s concurrent validity. Fifty six patients took IPAT again to establish test-retest reliability. Finally, patients completed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety questionnaires at three months, to determine predictive validity of the IPAT.ResultsOne hundred and sixty six patients completed the IPAT, and 106 completed follow-up questionnaires at 3 months. Scale analysis showed IPAT was a reliable 10-item measure of critical care-related psychological distress. Test-retest reliability was good (r =0.8). There was good concurrent validity with measures of anxiety and depression (r =0.7, P <0.01; r =0.6, P <0.01). With a cut-point of ≥7, the IPAT had 82% sensitivity and 65% specificity to detect concurrent anxiety; and 80% sensitivity and 66% specificity to detect concurrent low mood (area under the curve (AUC) =0.8 for both). Predictive validity for psychological morbidity was good (r =0.4, P <0.01; r =0.64, P <0.01 for PTSD with days 1 and 2 data). The IPAT had 69% specificity and 57% sensitivity to predict future psychological morbidity (AUC =0.7).ConclusionsThe IPAT was found to have good reliability and validity. Sensitivity and specificity analysis suggest the IPAT could provide a way of allowing staff to assess psychological distress among critical care patients after further replication and validation. Further work is also needed to determine its utility in predicting future psychological morbidity.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0519-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: To understand from the perspective of patients who did, and did not attend ICU recovery programs, what were the most important components of successful programs and how should they be organized. Design: International, qualitative study. Setting: Fourteen hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Patients: We conducted 66 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of patients, 52 of whom had used an ICU recovery program and 14 whom had not. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Using content analysis, prevalent themes were documented to understand what improved their outcomes. Contrasting quotes from patients who had not received certain aspects of care were used to identify perceived differential effectiveness. Successful ICU recovery programs had five key components: 1) Continuity of care; 2) Improving symptom status; 3) Normalization and expectation management; 4) Internal and external validation of progress; and 5) Reducing feelings of guilt and helplessness. The delivery of care which achieved these goals was facilitated by early involvement (even before hospital discharge), direct involvement of ICU staff, and a focus on integration across traditional disease, symptom, and social welfare needs. Conclusions: In this multicenter study, conducted across three continents, patients identified specific and reproducible modes of benefit derived from ICU recovery programs, which could be the target of future intervention refinement.

Objective-Investigate the challenges experienced by survivors of critical illness and their caregivers across the transitions of care from intensive care to community, and the potential problem-solving strategies used to navigate these challenges.Design-Qualitative design -data generation via interviews and data analysis via the Framework Analysis method.Setting-Patients and caregivers from three continents, identified through the Society of Critical Care Medicine's THRIVE international collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support groups). Subjects-Patients and caregivers following critical illness. Interventions-NilMeasurements and Main Results-From 86 interviews (66 patients, 20 caregivers), we identified the following major themes: 1. Challenges for patients -Interacting with the health system and gaps in care; Managing others' expectations of illness and recovery; 2. Challenges for caregivers -Health system shortfalls and inadequate communication; and Lack of support for caregivers. 3. Patient and caregiver-driven problem solving across the transitions of care -Personal attributes, resources, and initiative; Receiving support and helping others; and Acceptance.Conclusions-Survivors and caregivers experienced a range of challenges across the transitions of care. There were distinct and contrasting themes related to the caregiver experience. Survivors and caregivers used comparable problem-solving strategies to navigate the challenges encountered across the transitions of care.Haines et al.