Implementation of an ICU Recovery Clinic at a Tertiary Care Academic Center.

Post-ICU clinics may facilitate the care of survivors of critical illness, but there is a paucity of data describing post-ICU clinic implementation. We sought to describe implementation of our ICU recovery clinic, including an assessment of barriers and facilitators to clinic attendance. DESIGN: Adults admitted to the medical ICU of a large tertiary care academic hospital with shock and/or respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation were screened for participation in a newly formed ICU recovery clinic. Participant selection and attendance rates were tracked. Reasons for nonattendance were assessed by phone call in a subset of patients. SETTING: A newly formed ICU recovery clinic of a large tertiary care academic hospital. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to the medical ICU were screened. INTERVENTIONS: ICU recovery clinic appointments were scheduled for all eligible patients. A subset of nonattenders were called to assess reasons for nonattendance. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Over 2 years, we admitted 5,510 patients to our medical ICU. Three hundred sixty-two were screened into the recovery clinic. One-hundred sixty-six were not scheduled for clinic; major reasons included discharge to hospice/death in the hospital (n = 55) and discharge to a facility (n = 50). One-hundred ninety-six patients were scheduled for a visit and of those, 101 (52%) arrived to clinic. Reasons for nonattendance in a surveyed subset of nonattenders included patient's lack of awareness of the appointment (50%, n = 9/18), financial concerns (17%, n = 3/18), and transportation difficulty (17%, n = 3/18). CONCLUSIONS: ICU recovery clinics may address the needs of survivors of critical illness. Barriers to clinic attendance include high mortality rates, high rates of clinic appointment cancelations and nonattendance, and discharge to locations such as skilled nursing facilities or long-term acute care hospitals. Improved communication to patients about the role of the clinic may facilitate attendance and minimize canceled appointments.

Physical function impairment in survivors of critical illness in an ICU Recovery Clinic.

PURPOSE: The aims were to 1) determine feasibility of measuring physical function in our ICU Recovery Clinic (RC), 2) determine if physical function was associated with 6-month re-hospitalization and 1-year mortality and 3) compare ICU survivors' physical function to other comorbid populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We established the Wake Forest ICU RC. Patients were seen in clinic 1month following hospital discharge. Testing included the Short Form-36 questionnaire and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). We related these measures to 6month re-hospitalizations and 1year mortality, and compared patients' functional performance with other comorbid populations. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were seen in clinic from July 2014 to June 2015; the median SPPB score was 5 (IQR 5). The median SF-36 physical component summary score was 21.8 (IQR 28.8). Mortality was 14% at 1year. Of those who did not die by 1year, 35% were readmitted to our hospital within 6months of hospital discharge. SPPB scores demonstrated a non-significant trend with both mortality (p=0.06) and readmissions (p=0.09). ICU survivors' SPPB scores were significantly lower than those of other chronically ill populations (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physical function measurement in a recovery clinic is feasible and may inform subsequent morbidity and mortality.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol combination inhaler efficacy and potential impact on current chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Umeclidinium bromide (UM) with vilanterol (VI) is the first once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2 agonist (LAMA/LABA) combination approved for use in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the USA. Prior to this, only combinations of short-acting bronchodilators and short-acting muscarinic antagonists were available in the USA as a single inhaler and they required frequent dosing. LAMA or LABA therapy is the recommended first choice for moderate-to-very severe COPD with combination therapy added if monotherapy fails to control patients' symptoms. This allows lower dosing of individual medications, which may limit adverse effects. It could also have the additional benefit of improving patient compliance by making medication regimens less laboring. AREAS COVERED: A comprehensive literature search of journal articles and abstracts looking for trials that evaluated both the efficacy and the safety of UM/VI revealed that UM/VI improves patients' lung function and overall health status, while maintaining excellent safety and tolerability profiles compared to placebo and other bronchodilators. EXPERT OPINION: Given the clinical efficacy, favorable safety profile and ease of use, clinicians may recommend UM/VI to patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD - a shift that could have significant impact on the management of COPD.