Implementation of a routine post-shift debriefing program in ICU aiming at quality-of-care improvement: A primary analysis of feasibility and impacts.

OBJECTIVES: This report describes the implementation of a clinical debriefing (CD) program in intensive care units (ICU) and analyses its feasibility and its impact on staff well-being. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: From April to September 2023, post-shift CDs were run once a week in 2 out of 7 units in our department, using an adapted version of the DISCOVER-PHASE tool. CD sessions were performed face-to-face with volunteer members of the multidisciplinary ICU team. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: After 6 months, a survey assessing the satisfaction of the debriefed teams was conducted. The impact of CD on staff well-being was assessed using three validated questionnaires (Maslach Burnout Inventory, Ways of Coping Checklist, Professional Quality of Life Scale) administered in the 7 units before and after the CD period. RESULTS: A total of 44 CDs were performed, lasting 15 (4-35) min. There were 6 (1-9) attendees per CD, mainly nurses (64.6%). Discussions focused mainly on basic problems related to dysfunctional material, communication and organization inside the team. The two debriefed teams were satisfied of the program and gave 9, 8 and 8 out of 10 on a visual analogical scale for the climate of confidence of the DC, their organisation, and their ability to improve working conditions and quality of care, respectively. Subscores at the three questionnaires assessing staff well-being before and after the CD period were similar, whether teams experienced CD or not. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing of post-shift debriefings in our ICU was feasible and well accepted. More prolonged programs are probably needed to demonstrate benefits on staff well-being. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: This report offers elements that other teams can use to successfully conduct post-shift debriefings and to plan future research on longer-term programs.

One-Year Functional Decline in COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Critically Ill Survivors: A Prospective Study Incorporating a Pre-ICU Status Assessment.

We aimed to describe the one-year (1-y) functional status of survivors of COVID-19 critical illness, compared to non-COVID-19 survivors, and compared to their pre-ICU status. Adults who survived a COVID-19 critical illness (COVID group) during the first two waves in 2 hospitals were contacted by phone 1-y after discharge. They were compared to non-COVID-19 ICU survivors. A standardized assessment focused on quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), autonomy for activities of daily living (Barthel Index), and physical activity quantification (IPAQ-SF). Patients rated their 1-y and pre-ICU status. We included 220 survivors (132 COVID and 88 NC). Their age and severity scores were similar. ICU stay was shorter in NC group (3 [3−6] d) than in COVID group (8 [4.2−16.7] d) (p = 0.001). Proportions of organ supports were similar in the two groups. At 1-y, a significant reduction in EQ-5D-3L total score, in Barthel Index and in physical activity was observed in both groups, compared to the respective baseline values. Dependency (Barthel < 100) was observed in at least 35% of survivors at 1-y. Independently of the critical illness, HRQoL, autonomy and physical activities at 1-y were still significantly inferior to the pre-ICU values.

Outcome Improvement Between the First Two Waves of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in a Single Tertiary-Care Hospital in Belgium.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patient management and outcome during the first and second waves of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic. DESIGN: Single-center prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care University Hospital. PATIENTS: All adult patients admitted in either the first (from March 15 to May 15, 2020) or second (from October 1 to November 30, 2020) wave of coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. During the second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, 33 patients (4.8%) were transferred due to overcrowding and excluded from analysis. There were 341 (first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic) and 695 (second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic) coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted to the hospital, with median age first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as 68 (57-80) and second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as 71 (60-80) (p = 0.15), and similar admission severity. For the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic versus second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, 30-day mortality was 74/341 (22%) and 98/662 (15%) (p = 0.007). In the ward, 11/341 (3.2%) and 404/662 (61%) received dexamethasone (p < 0.001); 6/341 (2%) and 79/662 (12%) received high-flow nasal oxygen (p < 0.0001); 2/341 (0.6%) and 88/662 (13.3%) received remdesivir (p < 0.0001); 249/341 (73%) and 0/662 (0%) received hydroxychloroquine (p < 0.0001); and 87/341 (26%) and 128/662 (19%) (p = 0.024) patients were transferred to ICU. On ICU admission, median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was 6 (3-7) and 4 (3-6) (p = 0.02). High-flow nasal oxygen was given to 16/87 (18%) and 102/128 (80%) (p < 0.001); 69/87 (79%) and 56/128 (44%) received mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001) with durations 17 days (10-26 d) and 10 days (5-17 d) (p = 0.01). Median ICU length of stay was 14 days (5-27 d) and 6 days (3-11 d) (p < 0.001). Finally, 16/87 (18%) and 8/128 (6%) received renal replacement therapy (p = 0.0055); and 64/87 (74%) and 51/128 (40%) needed vasopressor support (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The main therapeutic changes between the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were use of steroids, unrestrictive use of high-flow nasal oxygen for hypoxemic patients, and transfer of patients to other geographic areas in the case of ICU overcrowding. These changes were associated with a decrease in 30-day mortality, ICU admission, and organ support.