Anxiety and depression following critical illness: A comparison of the recovery trajectories of patients and caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Following critical illness, family members are often required to adopt caregiving responsibilities. Anxiety and depression are common long term problems for both patients and caregivers. However, at present, it is not known how the trajectories of these symptoms compare between patients and caregivers. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the trajectories of anxiety and depression in patients and caregivers in the first year following critical illness. METHODS: This study analyses data from a prospective multicentre cohort study of patients and caregivers who underwent a complex recovery intervention following critical illness. Paired patients and caregivers were recruited. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was used to evaluate symptoms of anxiety and depression at three timepoints: baseline; 3 months; and 12 months in both patient and caregivers. A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to evaluate the trajectories of these symptoms over the first year following critical illness. RESULTS: 115 paired patients and caregivers, who received the complex recovery intervention, were recruited. There was no significant difference in the relative trajectory of depressive symptoms between patients and caregivers in the first 12 months following critical illness (p = 0.08). There was, however, a significant difference in the trajectory of anxiety symptoms between patients and caregivers during this time period (p = 0.04), with caregivers seeing reduced resolution of symptoms in comparison to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Following critical illness, symptoms of anxiety and depression are common in both patients and caregivers. The trajectory of symptoms of depression was similar between caregivers and patients; however, there was a significantly different recovery trajectory in symptoms of anxiety. Further research is required to understand the recovery pathway of caregivers in order to design effective interventions.

Could an integrated model of health and social care after critical illness reduce socioeconomic disparities in outcomes? A Bayesian analysis.

Background: There is limited evidence to understand what impact, if any, recovery services might have for patients across the socioeconomic spectrum after critical illness. We analysed data from a multicentre critical care recovery programme to understand the impact of this programme across the socioeconomic spectrum. Methods: The setting for this pre-planned secondary analysis was a critical care rehabilitation programme-Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment. Data were collected from five hospital sites running this programme. We utilised a Bayesian approach to analysis and explore any possible effect of the InS:PIRE intervention on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) across the socioeconomic gradient. A Bayesian quantile, non-linear mixed effects regression model, using a compound symmetry covariance structure, accounting for multiple timepoints was utilised. The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) was used to measure socioeconomic status and HRQoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L. Results: In the initial baseline cohort of 182 patients, 55% of patients were male, the median age was 58 yr (inter-quartile range: 50-66 yr) and 129 (79%) patients had two or more comorbidities at ICU admission. Using the neutral prior, there was an overall probability of intervention benefit of 100% (ß=0.71, 95% credible interval: 0.34-1.09) over 12 months to those in the SIMD≤3 cohort, and an 98.6% (ß=-1.38, 95% credible interval: -2.62 to -0.16) probability of greater benefit (i.e. a steeper increase in improvement) at 12 months in the SIMD≤3 vs SIMD≥4 cohort in the EQ-visual analogue scale. Conclusions: Using multicentre data, this re-analysis suggests, but does not prove, that an integrated health and social care intervention is likely to improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient after critical illness, with a potentially greater benefit for those from deprived communities. Future research designed to prospectively analyse how critical care recovery programmes could potentially improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient is warranted.

Factors Associated With New Analgesic Requirements Following Critical Illness.

BACKGROUND: Chronic opioid use represents a significant burden to global healthcare with adverse long-term outcomes. Elevated patient reported pain levels and analgesic prescriptions have been reported following discharge from critical care. We describe analgesic requirements following discharge from hospital and identify if a critical care admission is a significant factor for stronger analgesic prescriptions. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study identified patients in the UK Biobank with a registered admission to any UK hospital between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 and information on prescriptions drawn both prior to and following hospital discharge. Two matched cohorts were created from the dataset: critical care patients and hospital patients admitted without a critical care encounter. Outcomes were analgesic requirements following hospital discharge and factors associated with increased analgesic prescriptions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with prescriptions from higher steps on the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder. RESULTS: In total, 660 formed the total study population. Strong opioid prescriptions following discharge were significantly higher in the critical care cohort (P value <.001). Critical care admission (OR = 1.45) and increasing Townsend deprivation (OR = 1.04) index were significantly associated with increasing strength of analgesic prescriptions following discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care patients require stronger analgesic prescriptions in the 12 months following hospital discharge. Patients from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation may also be associated with increased analgesic requirements. Multidisciplinary support is required for patients who may be at risk of chronic opioid use and could be delivered within critical care recovery programs.

Post-hospital recovery trajectories of family members of critically ill COVID-19 survivors: an international qualitative investigation.

PURPOSE: The immediate impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) visiting restrictions for family members has been well-documented. However, the longer-term trajectory, including mechanisms for support, is less well-known. To address this knowledge gap, we aimed to explore the post-hospital recovery trajectory of family members of patients hospitalised with a critical care COVID-19 admission. We also sought to understand any differences across international contexts. METHODS: We undertook semi-structured interviews with family members of patients who had survived a COVID-19 critical care admission. Family members were recruited from Spain and the United Kingdom (UK) and telephone interviews were undertaken. Interviews were analysed using a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Across the international sites, 19 family members were interviewed. Four themes were identified: changing relationships and carer burden; family health and trauma; social support and networks and differences in lived experience. We found differences in the social support and networks theme across international contexts, with Spanish participants more frequently discussing religion as a form of support. CONCLUSIONS: This international qualitative investigation has demonstrated the challenges which family members of patients hospitalised with a critical care COVID-19 admission experience following hospital discharge. Specific support mechanisms which could include peer support networks, should be implemented for family members to ensure ongoing needs are met.

The relationship between pain, anxiety and depression in patients with post-intensive care syndrome.

PURPOSE: Survivors of critical illness frequently experience long-term symptoms including physical symptoms such as pain and emotional symptoms such as anxiety and depression. These symptoms frequently co-exist, however, at present there is limited understanding of these relationships. The aim of this study was to quantify the relationship between pain, anxiety and depression across the recovery trajectory. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of data from a multi-centre, prospective, cohort study which followed-up patients recovering from critical illness. Data was available at multiple time points and for 3 distinct cohorts. Structural equation modelling was used to investigate the relationship between outcome measures of pain, anxiety and depression. RESULTS: Data from 414 patients was analysed. Pain was significantly associated with both anxiety and depression in all cohorts and at all time points sampled. Path coefficients for the covariances between pain and depression ranged between 0.39 and 0.72 (p < 0.01). Path coefficients for the covariances between pain and anxiety ranged between 0.39 and 0.65 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pain, anxiety and depression are highly correlated in survivors of critical illness. Pharmacological treatments for pain management may be ineffective alone and further research is required to assess interventions targeting these symptoms in combination.

An International, Multicenter Evaluation of Comprehensive Medication Management by Pharmacists in ICU Recovery Centers.

BACKGROUND: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is defined as a new or worsening impairment in physical, cognitive, or mental health following critical illness. Intensive care unit recovery centers (ICU-RC) are one means to treat patients who have PICS. The purpose of this study is to describe the role of pharmacists in ICU-RCs. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the number and type of medication interventions made by a pharmacist at an ICU-RC at 12 different centers? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study was conducted in 12 intensive care units (ICUs)/ICU-RCs between September 2019 and July 2021. A full medication review was conducted by a pharmacist on patients seen at the ICU-RC. RESULTS: 507 patients were referred to the ICU-RC. Of these patients, 474 attended the ICU-RC and 472 had a full medication review performed by a pharmacist. Baseline demographic and hospital course data were obtained from the electronic health record and at the ICU-RC appointment. Pharmacy interventions were made in 397 (84%) patients. The median number of pharmacy interventions per patient was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1,3). Medications were stopped and started in 124 (26%) and 91 (19%) patients, respectively. The number of patients that had a dose decreased and a dose increased was 51 (11%) and 43 (9%), respectively. There was no difference in the median total number of medications that the patient was prescribed at the start and end of the patient visit (10, IQR = 5, 15). Adverse drug event (ADE) preventive measures were implemented in 115 (24%) patients. ADE events were identified in 69 (15%) patients. Medication interactions were identified in 30 (6%) patients. INTERPRETATION: A pharmacist plays an integral role in an ICU-RC resulting in the identification, prevention, and treatment of medication-related problems. This paper should serve as a call to action on the importance of the inclusion of a pharmacist in ICU-RC clinics.

Medication-related problems in critical care survivors: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: There are numerous, often single centre discussions of assorted medication-related problems after hospital discharge in patients who survive critical illness. However, there has been little synthesis of the incidence of medication-related problems, the classes of medications most often studied, the factors that are associated with greater patient risk of such problems or interventions that can prevent them. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review to understand medication management and medication problems in critical care survivors in the hospital discharge period. We searched OVID Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane database (2001-2022). Two reviewers independently screened publications to identify studies that examined medication management at hospital discharge or thereafter in critical care survivors. We included randomised and non-randomised studies. We extracted data independently and in duplicate. Data extracted included medication type, medication-related problems and frequency of medication issues, alongside demographics such as study setting. Cohort study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottowa Score checklist. Data were analysed across medication categories. RESULTS: The database search initially retrieved 1180 studies; following the removal of duplicates and studies which did not fit the inclusion criteria, 47 papers were included. The quality of studies included varied. The outcomes measured and the timepoints at which data were captured also varied, which impacted the quality of data synthesis. Across the studies included, we found that as many as 80% of critically ill patients experienced medication-related problems in the posthospital discharge period. These issues included inappropriate continuation of newly prescribed drugs such as antipsychotics, gastrointestinal prophylaxis and analgesic medications, as well as inappropriate discontinuation of chronic disease medications, such as secondary prevention cardiac drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Following critical illness, a high proportion of patients experience problems with their medications. These changes were present across multiple health systems. Further research is required to understand optimal medicine management across the full recovery trajectory of critical illness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021255975.

Evaluating pain in survivors of critical illness: the correlation between the EQ-5D-5L and the Brief Pain Inventory.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is a common and debilitating symptom in survivors of critical illness. The 'Core Outcome Set for Survivors of Acute Respiratory Failure' proposes that the pain and discomfort question of the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) could be used to assess pain in this group, however, it was recognised that further research is required to evaluate how this single question compares to other more detailed pain tools. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between the pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) in survivors of critical illness. METHODS: This study retrospectively analysed paired EQ-5D-5L and BPI data extracted from a prospective, multicentre study evaluating the impact of a critical care recovery programme. 172 patients who received a complex recovery intervention and 108 patients who did not receive this intervention were included. Data were available for the intervention cohort at multiple time points, namely, baseline, 3 months and 12 months. While, data were available for the usual care cohort at a single time point (12 months). We assessed the correlation between the pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L and two separate components of the BPI: severity of pain and pain interference. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients comparing the pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L and the BPI pain severity score ranged between 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.80) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.86). Correlation coefficients comparing the pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L and the BPI pain interference score ranged between 0.71 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.79) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.88) across the various time points. CONCLUSIONS: The pain and discomfort question of the EQ-5D-5L correlates moderately well with a more detailed pain tool and may help to streamline assessments in survivorship studies. More in-depth tools may be of use where pain is the primary study outcome or a patient-reported concern.

Implementing an innovative, patient-centered approach to day case arthroplasty: improving patient outcomes through remote preoperative pharmacist consultations.

OBJECTIVE: Elective surgery suffered significant loss of capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this, hip and knee arthroplasties are being conducted as day case procedures. Pre-admission pharmacist consultations were introduced (the intervention) for these patients. This consultation aimed to address perioperative medicines issues, promote patient empowerment, improve prescribing quality and contribute to reduction in length of stay (LoS). METHODS: All patients listed for a total/unicompartmental knee replacement (TKR/UKR) or total hip replacement (THR) at an ambulatory care hospital were identified by a pharmacist prescriber 1-2 weeks before the operation. Pharmacist consultations were conducted remotely with discharge prescriptions written electronically and dispensed before admission. Prescribing data were collected for both pre-intervention (n=80) and post-intervention (n=129) groups along with all interventions undertaken during consultations. Staff opinion was sought via online questionnaire and patient opinion was gathered via post-discharge telephone calls. RESULTS: A total of 115 interventions took place during 129 patient consultations and >75% of interventions were of a significance expected to improve patient care. Prescribing standards were improved in the intervention group compared with patients whose arthroplasty was before the introduction of this service. The pharmacy service would have produced a different prescription in 38.8% of the pre-intervention group. Staff and patient feedback was extremely positive and all patients with previous surgical experience in the health board reported an improved experience. There was a statistically significant reduction in post-discharge healthcare encounters (such as general practitioner (GP) visits) in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: This novel remote preoperative pharmacist consultation improved prescribing standards, enhanced the patient's surgical experience and reduced the burden on post-discharge healthcare systems.

Evaluation of a health and social care programme to improve outcomes following critical illness: a multicentre study.

RATIONALE: At present, clinicians aiming to support patients through the challenges after critical care have limited evidence to base interventions. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate a multicentre integrated health and social care intervention for critical care survivors. A process evaluation assessed factors influencing the programme implementation. METHODS: This study evaluated the impact of the Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment (InS:PIRE) programme. We compared patients who attended this programme with a usual care cohort from the same time period across nine hospital sites in Scotland. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured via the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level instrument, at 12 months post hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy, depression, anxiety and pain. RESULTS: 137 patients who received the InS:PIRE intervention completed outcome measures at 12 months. In the usual care cohort, 115 patients completed the measures. The two cohorts had similar baseline demographics. After adjustment, there was a significant absolute increase in HRQoL in the intervention cohort in relation to the usual care cohort (0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.20, p=0.01). Patients in the InS:PIRE cohort also reported self-efficacy scores that were 7.7% higher (2.32 points higher, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.31, p=0.02), fewer symptoms of depression (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.76, p=0.01) and similar symptoms of anxiety (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13, p=0.11). There was no significant difference in overall pain experience. Key facilitators for implementation were: integration with inpatient care, organisational engagement, flexibility to service inclusion; key barriers were: funding, staff availability and venue availability. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre evaluation of a health and social care programme designed for survivors of critical illness appears to show benefit at 12 months following hospital discharge.

Patient and Caregiver-Derived Health Service Improvements for Better Critical Care Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: To engage critical care end-users (survivors and caregivers) to describe their emotions and experiences across their recovery trajectory, and elicit their ideas and solutions for health service improvements to improve the ICU recovery experience. DESIGN: End-user engagement as part of a qualitative design using the Framework Analysis method. SETTING: 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 and identified through the collaboratives. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six interviews were conducted. The following themes were identified: 1) Emotions and experiences of patients-"Loss of former self; Experiences of disability and adaptation"; 2) Emotions and experiences of caregivers-"Emotional impacts, adopting new roles, and caregiver burden; Influence of gender roles; Adaptation, adjustment, recalibration"; and 3) Patient and caregiver-generated solutions to improve recovery across the arc of care-"Family-targeted education; Expectation management; Rehabilitation for patients and caregivers; Peer support groups; Reconnecting with ICU post-discharge; Access to community-based supports post-discharge; Psychological support; Education of issues of ICU survivorship for health professionals; Support across recovery trajectory." Themes were mapped to a previously published recovery framework (Timing It Right) that captures patient and caregiver experiences and their support needs across the phases of care from the event/diagnosis to adaptation post-discharge home. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers reported a range of emotions and experiences across the recovery trajectory from ICU to home. Through end-user engagement strategies many potential solutions were identified that could be implemented by health services and tested to support the delivery of higher-quality care for ICU survivors and their caregivers that extend from tertiary to primary care settings.

A multicentre evaluation exploring the impact of an integrated health and social care intervention for the caregivers of ICU survivors.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers and family members of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) survivors can face emotional problems following patient discharge from hospital. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a multi-centre integrated health and social care intervention, on caregiver and family member outcomes. METHODS: This study evaluated the impact of the Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment (InS:PIRE) programme across 9 sites in Scotland. InS:PIRE is an integrated health and social care intervention. We compared caregivers who attended this programme with a contemporary control group of ICU caregivers (usual care cohort), who did not attend. RESULTS: The primary outcome was anxiety measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 12 months post-hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included depression, carer strain and clinical insomnia. A total of 170 caregivers had data available at 12 months for inclusion in this study; 81 caregivers attended the InS:PIRE intervention and completed outcome measures at 12 months post-hospital discharge. In the usual care cohort of caregivers, 89 completed measures. The two cohorts had similar baseline demographics. After adjustment, those caregivers who attended InS:PIRE demonstrated a significant improvement in symptoms of anxiety (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02), carer strain (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.16-0.98 p = 0.04) and clinical insomnia (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.77 p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in symptoms of depression at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre evaluation has shown that caregivers who attended an integrated health and social care intervention reported improved emotional health and less symptoms of insomnia, 12 months after the delivery of the intervention.

Long-term outcomes following severe COVID-19 infection: a propensity matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data describing the long-term outcomes of severe COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the long-term psychosocial and physical consequences of severe COVID-19 for patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre observational cohort study; between 3 and 7 months posthospital discharge, patients who had been admitted to critical care due to severe COVID-19 were invited to an established recovery service. Standardised questionnaires concerning emotional, physical and social recovery, including information on employment, were completed by patients. Using propensity score matching, we explored outcomes between patients admitted to critical care with and without COVID-19, using data from the same recovery programme. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and December 2020, 93 patients who had been admitted to critical with COVID-19 participated. Emotional dysfunction was common: 46.2% of patients had symptoms of anxiety and 34.4% symptoms of depression. At follow-up 53.7% of previously employed patients had returned to employment; there was a significant difference in return to employment across the socio-economic gradient, with lower numbers of patients from the most deprived areas returning to employment (p=0.03). 91 (97.8%) COVID-19 patients were matched with 91 non-COVID-19 patients. There were no significant differences in any measured outcomes between the two cohorts. INTERPRETATION: Emotional and social problems are common in survivors of severe COVID-19 infection. Coordinated rehabilitation is required to ensure patients make an optimal recovery.

Evaluation of medication changes following severe COVID-19 infection: a multicentre evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients often experience several transitions of care following critical illness. Research has explored the challenges which patients have with medication management across these transitions. It is unclear whether patients admitted to critical care due to COVID-19 will have similar challenges. The aim of this study was to explore medication management in critical care survivors following severe COVID-19. METHODS: Between 3 and 7 months post hospital discharge, patients who had been admitted to critical care due to severe COVID-19 were invited to an established recovery service. During the clinic consultation a medication review was performed by a pharmacist. This included medicines reconciliation, assessing the appropriateness of each of the prescribed medications and identification of medication changes. We also assessed changes to pain management in the discharge period. RESULTS: In total, 78 patients had a full medication review available. Over 70% of patients were taking an increased dose of medicine or a new medicine at clinic. There was a significant overall increase in new medication during the clinic consultation, across different British National Formulary classifications (OR: 1.73 (95% CI: 1.28 to 2.34), p<0.001). Compared with pre critical care admission, there was a significant increase in the number of patients taking regular analgesia following severe COVID-19 infection (23 (29.5%) vs 39 (50%), p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Following severe COVID-19, patients may require new or increasing doses of medicines. Ongoing review of these patients is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes.

Transitions of Care After Critical Illness-Challenges to Recovery and Adaptive Problem Solving.

OBJECTIVES: 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: Nil. MEASUREMENTS 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; 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.

Post-intensive care syndrome following cardiothoracic critical care: Feasibility of a complex intervention.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the long-term outcomes of cardiac intensive care unit patients and their primary caregivers, and to explore the feasibility of implementing a complex intervention, designed to support problems associated with post-intensive care syndrome and post-intensive care syndrome-family, in the year following discharge from the cardiac intensive care unit. DESIGN: A complex multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme, delivered as a quality improvement initiative, in a single centre in the West of Scotland. Outcomes were measured using surveys of health related quality of life, self efficacy, anxiety, depression, pain, caregiver strain, and insomnia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and their caregivers were invited to participate 12 weeks after hospital discharge. Twenty-seven patients and 23 caregivers attended the programme. RESULTS: Over 90% of patients had problems in at least one quality of life domain at baseline, 41% of patients had symptoms of anxiety and 22% had symptoms of depression. During the baseline visit, caregiver strain was present in 20% of caregivers, 57% had symptoms of anxiety, and 35% had symptoms of depression. Improvements in outcomes were seen in both patients and caregivers at 1-year follow-up. The programme was implemented, and iterative learning obtained about the content and the operationalization of the service, in order to understand feasibility. CONCLUSION: This small-scale quality improvement project has demonstrated that this complex multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme is feasible and has positive implications for patients following discharge from the cardiac intensive care unit, and their caregivers.

Society of Critical Care Medicine's International Consensus Conference on Prediction and Identification of Long-Term Impairments After Critical Illness.

BACKGROUND: After critical illness, new or worsening impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health function are common among patients who have survived. Who should be screened for long-term impairments, what tools to use, and when remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: Provide pragmatic recommendations to clinicians caring for adult survivors of critical illness related to screening for postdischarge impairments. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one international experts in risk-stratification and assessment of survivors of critical illness, including practitioners involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Thrive Post-ICU Collaboratives, survivors of critical illness, and clinical researchers. DESIGN: Society of Critical Care Medicine consensus conference on post-intensive care syndrome prediction and assessment, held in Dallas, in May 2019. A systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted in 2018 and updated in 2019 to complete an original systematic review and to identify pre-existing systematic reviews. MEETING OUTCOMES: We concluded that existing tools are insufficient to reliably predict post-intensive care syndrome. We identified factors before (e.g., frailty, preexisting functional impairments), during (e.g., duration of delirium, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome), and after (e.g., early symptoms of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder) critical illness that can be used to identify patients at high-risk for cognitive, mental health, and physical impairments after critical illness in whom screening is recommended. We recommend serial assessments, beginning within 2-4 weeks of hospital discharge, using the following screening tools: Montreal Cognitive Assessment test; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Impact of Event Scale-Revised (post-traumatic stress disorder); 6-minute walk; and/or the EuroQol-5D-5L, a health-related quality of life measure (physical function). CONCLUSIONS: Beginning with an assessment of a patient's pre-ICU functional abilities at ICU admission, clinicians have a care coordination strategy to identify and manage impairments across the continuum. As hospital discharge approaches, clinicians should use brief, standardized assessments and compare these results to patient's pre-ICU functional abilities ("functional reconciliation"). We recommend serial assessments for post-intensive care syndrome-related problems continue within 2-4 weeks of hospital discharge, be prioritized among high-risk patients, using the identified screening tools to prompt referrals for services and/or more detailed assessments.