Rationale: Restriction or prohibition of family visiting to intensive care units (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic poses substantial barriers to communication, and family-and patientcentred care. Objectives: Our objective was to understand how communication between families, patients and the ICU team was enabled during the pandemic. Secondary objectives were to understand strategies used to facilitate virtual visiting and associated benefits and barriers. Methods: Multi-centre, cross-sectional, self-administered electronic survey sent (June 2020) to all 217 UK hospitals with at least one ICU. Results: Survey response rate was 54%; 117/217 hospitals (182 ICUs). All hospitals imposed visiting restrictions with visits not permitted under any circumstance in 16% of hospitals (28 ICUs); 63% (112 ICUs) permitted family presence at end of life. Responsibility for communicating with families shifted with decreased bedside nurse involvement. A dedicated ICU family liaison team was established in 50% (106 ICUs) of hospitals. All but three hospitals instituted virtual visiting, although there was substantial heterogeneity in the videoconferencing platform used. Unconscious or sedated ICU patients were deemed ineligible for virtual visits in 23% of ICUs. Patients at end of life were deemed ineligible for virtual visits in 7% of ICUs. Commonly reported benefits of virtual visiting were reducing patient psychological distress (78%), improving staff morale (68%) and reorientation of delirious patients (47%). Common barriers to virtual visiting related to insufficient staff time, rapid implementation of videoconferencing technology, and challenges associated with family member ability to use videoconferencing technology or have access to a device.

Author contributions: KH, JMP, LB, CS had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All other authors contributed substantially to the study design, data analysis and interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript.

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-019-05647-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

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.

ObjectiveTo comprehensively update and survey the current provision of recovery, rehabilitation and follow-up services for adult critical care patients across the UK.DesignCross-sectional, self-administered, predominantly closed-question, electronic, online survey.SettingInstitutions providing adult critical care services identified from national databases.ParticipantsMultiprofessional critical care clinicians delivering services at each site.ResultsResponses from 176 UK hospital sites were included (176/242, 72.7%). Inpatient recovery and follow-up services were present at 127/176 (72.2%) sites, adopting multiple formats of delivery and primarily delivered by nurses (n=115/127, 90.6%). Outpatient services ran at 130 sites (73.9%), predominantly as outpatient clinics. Most services (n=108/130, 83.1%) were co-delivered by two or more healthcare professionals, typically nurse/intensive care unit (ICU) physician (n=29/130, 22.3%) or nurse/ICU physician/physiotherapist (n=19/130, 14.6%) teams. Clinical psychology was most frequently lacking from inpatient or outpatient services. Lack of funding was consistently the primary barrier to service provision, with other barriers including logistical and service prioritisation factors indicating that infrastructure and profile for services remain inadequate. Posthospital discharge physical rehabilitation programmes were relatively few (n=31/176, 17.6%), but peer support services were available in nearly half of responding institutions (n=85/176, 48.3%). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in either increasing, decreasing or reformatting service provision. Future plans for long-term service transformation focus on expansion of current, and establishment of new, outpatient services.ConclusionOverall, these data demonstrate a proliferation of recovery, follow-up and rehabilitation services for critically ill adults in the past decade across the UK, although service gaps remain suggesting further work is required for guideline implementation. Findings can be used to enhance survivorship for critically ill adults, inform policymakers and commissioners, and provide comparative data and experiential insights for clinicians designing models of care in international healthcare jurisdictions.

Objective: Patients and caregivers can experience a range of physical, psychological, and cognitive problems following critical care discharge. The use of peer support has been proposed as an innovative support mechanism. Design: We sought to identify technical, safety and procedural aspects of existing operational models of peer support, among the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive Peer Support Collaborative. We also sought to categorize key distinctions between these models and elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementation. Subjects: 17 Thrive sites from the USA, UK, and Australia were represented by a range of healthcare professionals. Interventions: Via an iterative process of in-person and email/conference calls, members of the Collaborative, defined the key areas on which peer support models could be defined and compared; collected detailed self-reports from all sites; reviewed the information and identified clusters of models. Barriers and challenges to implementation of peer support models were also documented. Results: Within the Thrive Collaborative, six general models of peer support were identified: Community based, Psychologist-led outpatient, Models based within ICU follow-up clinics, Online, Groups based within ICU and Peer mentor models. The most common barriers to implementation were: recruitment to groups, personnel input and training: sustainability and funding, risk management and measuring success. Conclusion: A number of different models of peer support are currently being developed to help patients and families recover and grow in the post-critical care setting.

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.