RESUMO
Providing standardized, high-quality rehabilitation for critically ill patients is a crucial issue. In 2017, the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine (JSICM) promulgated the "Evidence-Based Expert Consensus for Early Rehabilitation in the Intensive Care Unit" to advocate for the early initiation of rehabilitations in Japanese intensive care settings. Building upon this seminal work, JSICM has recently conducted a rigorous systematic review utilizing the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This endeavor resulted in the formulation of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), designed to elucidate best practices in early ICU rehabilitation. The primary objective of this guideline is to augment clinical understanding and thereby facilitate evidence-based decision-making, ultimately contributing to the enhancement of patient outcomes in critical care settings. No previous CPGs in the world has focused specifically on rehabilitation of critically ill patients, using the GRADE approach. Multidisciplinary collaboration is extremely important in rehabilitation. Thus, the CPGs were developed by 73 members of a Guideline Development Group consisting of a working group, a systematic review group, and an academic guideline promotion group, with the Committee for the Clinical Practice Guidelines of Early Mobilization and Rehabilitation in Intensive Care of the JSICM at its core. Many members contributed to the development of the guideline, including physicians and healthcare professionals with multiple and diverse specialties, as well as a person who had been patients in ICU. Based on discussions among the group members, eight important clinical areas of focus for this CPG were identified. Fourteen important clinical questions (CQs) were then developed for each area. The public was invited to comment twice, and the answers to the CQs were presented in the form of 10 GRADE recommendations and commentary on the four background questions. In addition, information for each CQ has been created as a visual clinical flow to ensure that the positioning of each CQ can be easily understood. We hope that the CPGs will be a useful tool in the rehabilitation of critically ill patients for multiple professions.
RESUMO
Psychological dysfunction is one of the considerable health-related outcomes among critically-ill patients and their informal caregivers. Follow-up of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors has been conducted in a variety of different ways, with different timing after discharge, targets of interest (physical, psychological, social) and measures used. Of diverse ICU follow-up, the effects of follow-ups which focused on psychological interventions are unknown. Our research question was whether follow-up with patients and their informal caregivers after ICU discharge improved mental health compared to usual care. We published a protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis in https://www.protocols.io/ (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bvjwn4pe). We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo from their inception to May 2022. We included randomized controlled trials for follow-ups after ICU discharge and focused on psychological intervention for critically ill adult patients and their informal caregivers. We synthesized primary outcomes, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and adverse events using the random-effects method. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. From the 10,471 records, we identified 13 studies (n = 3, 366) focusing on patients and four (n = 538) focusing on informal caregivers. ICU follow-up for patients resulted in little to no difference in the prevalence of depression (RR 0.89, 95% CI [0.59-1.34]; low-certainty evidence) and PTSD (RR 0.84, 95% CI [0.55-1.30]; low-certainty evidence) among patients; however, it increased the prevalence of depression (RR 1.58 95% CI [1.01-2.46]; very low-certainty evidence), PTSD (RR 1.36, 95% CI [0.91-2.03]; very low-certainty evidence) among informal caregivers. The evidence for the effect of ICU follow-up on adverse events among patients was insufficient. Eligible studies for informal caregivers did not define any adverse event. The effect of follow-ups after ICU discharge that focused on psychological intervention should be uncertain.
