Developing and evaluating critical care follow‐up

Abstract

The effects of critical illness not only affect the patient and relative during the intensive care stay but often affect for a considerable time afterwards. A growing body of opinion and evidence suggests that many of the needs of those who have been critically ill can be met through critical care follow-up services. A growing number of follow-up services now exist. Their establishment, development and evaluation pose significant challenges for those involved. This paper describes Bassetlaw hospital's critical care follow-up service, how it was established and what an elementary service evaluation project has shown. The findings and experiences are compared with others in published literature, and the paper may be of interest to those who are currently involved in follow-up or who plan to develop such services in the future.

Integrative review of nurse‐led follow‐up after discharge from theICU

“…Determining the exact number of ward visits depended on the patients' unique requirements, entailing a need for discussing their ICU experience, memories and need for information (Cutler et al 2003). However, the reason for multiple visits was not always explicitly described (Samuelson & Corrigan 2009).…”

“…During ward visits patients were invited to an appointment two-three months later (Cutler et al 2003, Pattison et al 2007, Samuelson & Corrigan 2009, Petersson et al 2011, Schandl et al 2011. During ward visits patients were invited to an appointment two-three months later (Cutler et al 2003, Pattison et al 2007, Samuelson & Corrigan 2009, Petersson et al 2011, Schandl et al 2011.…”

“…The ward visits were followed by appointment(s) at an ICU follow-up clinic 2-12 months after discharge (Crocker 2003, Cutler et al 2003, Jones et al 2003, Pattison et al 2007, Cuthbertson et al 2009, Samuelson & Corrigan 2009, Petersson et al 2011, Schandl et al 2011. The past was addressed by conversation(s) about ICU experiences and memories, and by helping patients to distinguish between real and unreal events (Crocker 2003, Cutler et al 2003, Pattison et al 2007, Cuthbertson et al 2009, Samuelson & Corrigan 2009, Petersson et al 2011, Schandl et al 2011. The primary focus was on the patients' past, as being critically ill in the ICU; the present, with the impact of critical illness on current recovery; and the future, as needing ongoing rehabilitation.…”

“…The primary focus was on the patients' past, as being critically ill in the ICU; the present, with the impact of critical illness on current recovery; and the future, as needing ongoing rehabilitation. The ICU nurse also identified concomitant problems such as breathlessness, eating difficulties, sleeping, mobility, concentration and memory difficulties (Cutler et al 2003, Cuthbertson et al 2007, Samuelson & Corrigan 2009). Diaries and photos from the ICU stay enabled discussion of experiences (Samuelson & Corrigan 2009, Schandl et al 2011.…”

The experiences of ICU patients during follow-up sessions – A qualitative study

“…In addition to this, follow-up sessions can provide an opportunity to ask if the participants require support in promoting their wellbeing and/or increasing their quality of life (Nåden and Eriksson, 2002;Samuelson and Corrigan, 2009). There is clear evidence that follow-up sessions have many benefits for the patient, as well as their relatives, and staff who provide care to these patients (Cutler et al, 2003;Rattray et al, 2010;Samuelson and Corrigan, 2009). With the aim of improving care for future intensive care patients, the nurses responsible for these follow-up sessions should provide their colleagues feedback based on what has been highlighted and observed in the follow-up sessions (Cutler et al, 2003;Egerod et al, 2013;Samuelson and Corrigan, 2009).…”