Using Qualitative Synthesis to Explore Heterogeneity of Randomized Trials on ICU Diaries.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify which set of components differentiates the ICU diaries that were effective in reducing psychologic symptoms after critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We searched the online databases MEDLINE, OVID, Embase, and EBSCOhost from inception to December 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the ICU diary were included, irrespective of the language, with samples of adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) and/or their relatives hospitalized in an ICU for more than 24 hours. Two qualitative syntheses on patients' and healthcare providers' perceptions on the ICU diary were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Four findings were extracted from the qualitative synthesis of patients' perspectives on the ICU diary. From the RCTs, we extracted the components of the ICU diary and whether the patients were ventilated for at least 3 days. We reported the outcome as effective or not, regardless of the psychiatric symptoms and diagnostic tools used for evaluation. We built a matrix in which each column represented a recommendation for an intervention component derived from the qualitative review, and each row represented whether the components of an individual trial's intervention matched any of the recommendations. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight RCTs were included in the final analysis. The sample of five studies consisted of patients under mechanical ventilation (MV) for at least 3 days. Two were positive trials. Three RCTs included family members, and two of those were positive trials. CONCLUSIONS: For patients under MV for at least 3 days, the ICU diaries that were effective in preventing psychiatric symptoms after critical illness were written by the ICU staff, delivered after hospital discharge, and read with a healthcare professional in order to better understand the diary and the ICU stay. For family members, the presence of photographs was the only characteristic identified a successful ICU diary.

Practices in sedation, analgesia, mobilization, delirium, and sleep deprivation in adult intensive care units (SAMDS-ICU): an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. METHODS: This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

Effectiveness of combined non-pharmacological interventions in the prevention of delirium in critically ill patients: A randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Delirium is a common dysfunction in the intensive care unit (ICU) and it is associated with negative short- and long-term outcomes. This study evaluated the effectiveness of combined non-pharmacological interventions in preventing delirium in critically ill patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center randomized controlled trial conducted in three Brazilian ICUs from February to September 2019. Patients assigned to the control group received standard care (n = 72) and those assigned to the experimental group (n = 72) received a bundle of non-pharmacological interventions (periodic reorientation, cognitive stimulation, correction of sensory deficits [visual or hearing impairment], environmental management and sleep promotion) throughout the ICU stay. Delirium was monitored twice a day with the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit Flowsheet. The primary outcome was the incidence density of delirium. RESULTS: The incidence density of delirium was lower in the intervention group (1.3 × 10-2 person-days) than in the control group (2.3 × 10-2 person-days), with a hazard ratio of 0.40 (95% confidence intervals, 0.17-0.95; p = 0.04) after adjustment for Simplified Acute Physiology Score III, surgical admission and alcoholism. CONCLUSIONS: Combined non-pharmacological interventions reduced delirium in critically ill patients, compared to standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC), Identifier RBR-6xq95s, October 03, 2018.

Exploring family members' and health care professionals' perceptions on ICU diaries: a systematic review and qualitative data synthesis.

PURPOSE: Although the intensive care unit (ICU) diary has been proposed as a tool for preventing psychiatric symptoms in survivors of critical illness, relatives and health care providers may benefit from it too. This study aims to summarize the current qualitative evidence on families' and health care professionals' experiences of writing in and reading the ICU diaries. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, OVID, Embase, and EBSCOhost from inception to February 2021, and included all the studies that presented any qualitative finding regarding relatives' and health care providers' experiences of writing in and reading an ICU diary. We used modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) for quality assessment. A thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze and synthesize the qualitative data. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were analyzed (15 including family members and 13 including health care professionals). For family members, the ICU diary is an important source of medical information, provides a way for them to register their presence at patient's bedside and express their feelings, and contributes to humanizing the ICU staff. This impression is shared by relatives of patients who did not survive critical illness. Health care providers believe the diary is beneficial for themselves and others; however, they are concerned with possible negative impressions from patients and family that could lead to judicial problems. They also remark on several obstacles they face when constructing the diaries (workload, creativity, and environment for writing), which can make it a distressful process. CONCLUSION: This qualitative synthesis shows that family members and health care professionals consider the ICU diary a valuable intervention. It also brings evidence to challenges faced during diary writing, which should be carefully approached in order to reduce the stress associated with this process.

Exploring Patients' Perceptions on ICU Diaries: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Data Synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to summarize the current qualitative evidence on patients' experiences of reading the ICU diaries. DATA SOURCES: We searched the online databases PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, and EBSCO host from inception to July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All studies that presented any qualitative findings regarding patients' experiences of reading an ICU diary were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Study design, location, publication year, data collection method, and mode, all qualitative themes identified and reported, and participant quotations, when appropriate. We also extracted data regarding the diary structure, when available. A thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze and synthesize qualitative data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies were analyzed. Most patients reported positive experiences with the ICU diary, such as understanding what they survived during critical illness, better understanding the process of recovery, gaining coherence of nightmares and delusional memories, realizing the importance of the presence of family and loved ones during ICU stay, and humanizing healthcare professionals that helped them survive critical illness. Patients also reported which components of the diary were important for their recovery, such as the presence of photographs and reading the diary with a healthcare professional, allowing the improvement of the concept of the ICU diary. CONCLUSION: This qualitative synthesis shows that patients recommend having an ICU diary, enlightening benefits such as better coping with the slow recovery from critical illness, strengthening family ties, and humanizing the ICU staff. It also identifies characteristics of the diary valued by the patients, in order to standardize the ICU diary according to their perspectives, and allowing future comparability between randomized controlled trials.