Pam Ramsay

This article consists of a citation of a published article describing research funded by the Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme under project number NIHR132068, and is provided as as part of the complete record of research outputs for this project. The original publication is available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15773 Aim: To understand the experience of critical care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic, through the application of the Job-Demand-Resource model of occupational stress. Design: Qualitative interview study. Methods: Twenty-eight critical care nurses (CCN) working in ICU in the UK NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic took part in semi-structured interviews between May 2021 and May 2022. Interviews were guided by the constructs of the Job-Demand Resource model. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Results: The most difficult job demands were the pace and amount, complexity, physical and emotional effort of their work. Prolonged high demands led to CCN experiencing emotional and physical exhaustion, burnout, post-traumatic stress symptoms and impaired sleep. Support from colleagues and supervisors was a core job resource. Sustained demands and impaired physical and psychological well-being had negative organizational consequences with CCN expressing increased intention to leave their role. Conclusions: The combination of high demands and reduced resources had negative impacts on the psychological well-being of nurses which is translating into increased consideration of leaving their profession. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: The full impacts of the pandemic on the mental health of CCN are unlikely to resolve without appropriate interventions. Impact: Managers of healthcare systems should use these findings to inform: (i) the structure and organization of critical care workplaces so that they support staff to be well, and (ii) supportive interventions for staff who are carrying significant psychological distress as a result of working during and after the pandemic. These changes are required to improve staff recruitment and retention. Reporting Method: We used the COREQ guidelines for reporting qualitative studies. Patient and Public Contribution: Six CCN provided input to survey content and interview schedule. Two authors and members of the study team (T.S. and S.C.) worked in critical care during the pandemic. Funding: This publication was funded by the Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as a part of award number NIHR132068. This article reports on one component of the research award Work-related stress: the Impact of COVID-19 on critical care and redeployed nurses. For more information about this research please view the award page [https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR132068] DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15773

Objective: To use the job demands−resources model of occupational stress to quantify and explain the impact of working in critical care during the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses and their employing organisation. Design: Two-phase mixed methods: a cross-sectional survey (January 2021–March 2022), with comparator baseline data from April to October 2018 (critical care nurses only), and semistructured interviews. Participants: Critical care nurses (n = 461) and nurses redeployed to critical care (n = 200) who worked in the United Kingdom National Health Service (primarily Scotland) between January 2021 and March 2022. The 2018 survey was completed by 557 critical care nurses (Scotland only). Survey response rate in Scotland was 32% but could not be determined outside Scotland. Forty-four nurses were interviewed (critical care = 28, redeployed = 16). Methods: A survey measured job demands, job resources, health impairment, work engagement and organisational outcomes. Data were compared to 2018 data. Regression analyses identified predictors of health impairment, work engagement and organisational outcomes. Semistructured interviews were conducted remotely, audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed deductively using framework analysis. Findings: Three-quarters of nurses reached threshold for psychological distress, approximately 50% reached threshold for burnout emotional exhaustion and a third clinically concerning post-traumatic stress symptoms. Compared to 2018, critical care nurses were at elevated risk of probable psychological distress, odds ratio 6.03 (95% CI 4.75 to 7.95); burnout emotional exhaustion, odds ratio 4.02 (3.07 to 5.26); burnout depersonalisation, odds ratio 3.18 (1.99 to 5.07); burnout accomplishment, odds ratio 1.53 (1.18 to 1.97). There were no differences between critical care and redeployed nurses on health impairment outcomes, suggesting elevated risk would apply to redeployed nurses. Job demands increased and resources decreased during the pandemic. Higher job demands predicted greater psychological distress. Job resources reduced the negative impact of job demands on psychological distress, but this moderating effect was not observed at higher levels of demand. All organisational outcomes worsened. Lack of resources predicted worse organisational outcomes. In interviews, staff described the pace and amount, complexity, physical and emotional effort of their work as the most difficult job demands. The sustained high-demand environment impacted physical and psychological well-being, with most interviewees experiencing emotional and physical exhaustion, burnout, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Camaraderie and support from colleagues and supervisors were core job resources. The combination of sustained demands and their impact on staff well-being incurred negative organisational consequences, with increasing numbers considering leaving their specialty or nursing altogether. Dissemination events with a range of stakeholders, including study participants, identified staffing issues and lack of learning and development opportunities as problematic. Critical care nurses are concerned about the future delivery of high-quality critical care services. Positive aspects were identified, for example, reduced bureaucratic systems, increased local autonomy and decision-making, recognition of the critical care nurse skill set. Conclusions: The National Health Service needs to recognise the impact of COVID-19 on this staff group, prioritise the welfare of critical care nurses, implement workplace change/planning, and support them to recover from the pandemic. The National Health Service is struggling to retain critical care nurses and, unless staff welfare is improved, quality of care and patient safety will likely decline. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR132068.

Intensive care survivors suffer chronic and potentially life-changing physical, psychosocial and cognitive sequelae, and supporting recovery is an international priority. As survivors’ transition from the intensive care unit to home, their support needs develop and change. In this scoping review, we categorised patients’ support needs using House’s Social Support Needs framework (informational, emotional, instrumental, appraisal) and mapped these against the Timing it Right framework reflecting the patient’s transition from intensive care (event/diagnosis) to ward (stabilisation/preparation) and discharge home (implementation/adaptation). We searched electronic databases from 2000 to 2017 for qualitative research studies reporting adult critical care survivors’ experiences of care. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted and coded data. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. From 3035 references, we included 32 studies involving 702 patients. Studies were conducted in UK and Europe (n = 17, 53%), Canada and the USA (n = 6, 19%), Australasia (n = 6, 19%), Hong Kong (n = 1, 3%), Jordan (n = 1, 3%) and multi-country (n = 1, 3%). Across the recovery trajectory, informational, emotional, instrumental, appraisal and spiritual support needs were evident, and the nature and intensity of need differed when mapped against the Timing it Right framework. Informational needs changed from needing basic facts about admission, to detail about progress and treatments and coping with long-term sequelae. The nature of emotional needs changed from needing to cope with confusion, anxiety and comfort, to a need for security and family presence, coping with flashbacks, and needing counselling and community support. Early instrumental needs ranged from managing sleep, fatigue, pain and needing nursing care and transitioned to needing physical and cognitive ability support, strength training and personal hygiene; and at home, regaining independence, strength and return to work. Appraisal needs related to obtaining feedback on progress, and after discharge, needing reassurance from others who had been through the ICU experience. This review is the first to identify the change in social support needs among intensive care survivors as they transition from intensive care to the home environment. An understanding of needs at different transition periods would help inform health service provision and support for survivors.

Objectives: To identify actionable processes of care, quality indicators, or performance measures and their evidence base relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members including themes relating to patient/family experience.Data Sources: Two authors independently searched electronic, systemic review, and trial registration databases (inception to November 2016).Study Selection: We included studies with an ICU length of stay of greater than or equal to 7 days as an inclusion criterion and reported actionable processes of care; quality improvement indicators, measures, or tools; or patient/family experience. We excluded case series/reports of less than 10 patients.Data Extraction: Paired authors independently extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment.Data Synthesis: We screened 13,130 references identifying 114 primary studies and 102 relevant reviews. Primary studies reported data on 24,252 participants; median (interquartile range) sample size of 70 (32–182). We identified 42 distinct actionable processes of care, the most commonly investigated related to categories of 1) weaning methods (21 studies; 27 reviews); 2) rehabilitation, mobilization, and physiotherapy (20 studies; 40 reviews); and 3) provision of information, prognosis, and family communication (14 studies; 11 reviews). Processes with limited evidence were generally more patient-centered categories such as communication, promotion of sleep, symptom management, or family support. Of the 21 randomized controlled trials, only two were considered at low risk of bias across all six domains, whereas just two cohort studies and one qualitative study were considered of high quality.Conclusions: We identified 42 distinct actionable processes of care relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their families, with most frequently studied processes relating to weaning, rehabilitation/mobilization, and family communication. Qualitative studies highlighted the need to address psychologic needs and distressing symptoms as well as enabling patient communication. Our findings are informative for clinicians and decision-makers when planning high-quality patient and family-focused care.

Approximately 5 to 10% of critically ill patients transition from acute critical illness to a state of persistent and in some cases chronic critical illness. These patients have unique and complex needs that require a change in the clinical management plan and overall goals of care to a focus on rehabilitation, symptom relief, discharge planning, and in some cases, end-of-life care. However, existing indicators and measures of care quality, and tools such as checklists, that foster implementation of best practices, may not be sufficiently inclusive in terms of actionable processes of care relevant to these patients. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify the processes of care, performance measures, quality indicators, and outcomes including reports of patient/family experience described in the current evidence base relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members. Two authors will independently search from inception to November 2016: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, the Joanna Briggs Institute and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will include all study designs except case series/reports of <10 patients describing their study population (aged 18 years and older) using terms such as persistent critical illness, chronic critical illness, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Two authors will independently perform data extraction and complete risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcome is to determine actionable processes of care and interventions deemed relevant to patients experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members. Secondary outcomes include (1) performance measures and quality indicators considered relevant to our population of interest and (2) themes related to patient and family experience. We will use our systematic review findings, with data from patient, family member and clinician interviews, and a subsequent consensus building process to inform the development of quality metrics and tools to measure processes of care, outcomes and experience for patients experiencing persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members. PROSPERO CRD42016052715

Objectives To explore and compare patient/carer experiences of rehabilitation in the intervention and usual care arms of the RECOVER trial (ISRCTN09412438); a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention of post-intensive care unit (ICU) acute hospital-based rehabilitation following critical illness. Design Mixed methods process evaluation including comparison of patients' and carers' experience of usual care versus the complex intervention. We integrated and compared quantitative data from a patient experience questionnaire (PEQ) with qualitative data from focus groups with patients and carers. Setting Two university-affiliated hospitals in Scotland. Participants 240 patients discharged from ICU who required ≥48 hours of mechanical ventilation were randomised into the trial (120 per trial arm). Exclusion criteria comprised: primary neurologic diagnosis, palliative care, current/planned home ventilation and age 3 months postrandomisation. Interventions A complex intervention of post-ICU acute hospital rehabilitation, comprising enhanced physiotherapy, nutritional care and information provision, case-managed by dedicated rehabilitation assistants (RAs) working within existing ward-based clinical teams, delivered between ICU discharge and hospital discharge. Comparator was usual care. Outcome measures A novel PEQ capturing patient-reported aspects of quality care. Results The PEQ revealed statistically significant between-group differences across 4 key intervention components: physiotherapy (p=0.039), nutritional care (p=0.038), case management (p=0.045) and information provision (pConclusions Case management by dedicated RAs improves patients' experiences of post-ICU hospital-based rehabilitation and increases perceived quality of care. Trial registration number ISRCTN09412438.

Background: Increasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, but survival may be associated with a constellation of physical and psychological sequelae that can cause ongoing disability and reduced health-related quality of life. Limited evidence currently exists to guide the optimum structure, timing, and content of rehabilitation programmes. There is a need to both develop and evaluate interventions to support and expedite recovery during the post-ICU discharge period. This paper describes the construct development for a complex rehabilitation intervention intended to promote physical recovery following critical illness. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial (ISRCTN09412438; funder Chief Scientists Office, Scotland).Methods: The intervention was developed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex healthcare interventions. We ensured representation from a wide variety of stakeholders including content experts from multiple specialties, methodologists, and patient representation. The intervention construct was initially based on literature review, local observational and audit work, qualitative studies with ICU survivors, and brainstorming activities. Iterative refinement was aided by the publication of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline (No. 83), publicly available patient stories (Healthtalkonline), a stakeholder event in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, and local piloting. Modelling and further work involved a feasibility trial and development of a novel generic rehabilitation assistant (GRA) role. Several rounds of external peer review during successive funding applications also contributed to development.Results: The final construct for the complex intervention involved a dedicated GRA trained to pre-defined competencies across multiple rehabilitation domains (physiotherapy, dietetics, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy), with specific training in post-critical illness issues. The intervention was from ICU discharge to 3 months post-discharge, including inpatient and post-hospital discharge elements. Clear strategies to provide information to patients/families were included. A detailed taxonomy was developed to define and describe the processes undertaken, and capture them during the trial. The detailed process measure description, together with a range of patient, health service, and economic outcomes were successfully mapped on to the modified CONSORT recommendations for reporting non-pharmacologic trial interventions.Conclusions: The MRC complex intervention framework was an effective guide to developing a novel post-ICU rehabilitation intervention. Combining a clearly defined new healthcare role with a detailed taxonomy of process and activity enabled the intervention to be clearly described for the purpose of trial delivery and reporting. These data will be useful when interpreting the results of the randomised trial, will increase internal and external trial validity, and help others implement the intervention if the intervention proves clinically and cost effective.

Aims and objectives: To explore the psychosocial needs of patients discharged from intensive care, the extent to which they are captured using existing theory on transitions in care and the potential role development of critical care outreach, follow‐up and liaison services.Background: Intensive care patients are at an increased risk of adverse events, deterioration or death following ward transfer. Nurse‐led critical care outreach, follow‐up or liaison services have been adopted internationally to prevent these potentially avoidable sequelae. The need to provide patients with psychosocial support during the transition to ward‐based care has also been identified, but the evidence base for role development is currently limited.Design and methods: Twenty participants were invited to discuss their experiences of ward‐based care as part of a broader study on recovery following prolonged critical illness. Psychosocial distress was a prominent feature of their accounts, prompting secondary data analysis using Meleis et al.'s mid‐range theory on experiencing transitions.Results: Participants described a sense of disconnection in relation to profound debilitation and dependency and were often distressed by a perceived lack of understanding, indifference or insensitivity among ward staff to their basic care needs. Negotiating the transition between dependence and independence was identified as a significant source of distress following ward transfer. Participants varied in the extent to which they were able to express their needs and negotiate recovery within professionally mediated boundaries.Conclusion: These data provide new insights into the putative origins of the psychosocial distress that patients experience following ward transfer.Relevance to clinical practice: Meleis et al.'s work has resonance in terms of explicating intensive care patients' experiences of psychosocial distress throughout the transition to general ward–based care, such that the future role development of critical care outreach, follow‐up and liaison services may be more theoretically informed.

Introduction: Each year, approximately 100,000 patients are admitted to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in the United Kingdom, approximately 75% of whom survive to hospital discharge. Survival is associated, however, with a significant burden of physical and psychosocial sequelae. Recovery can be protracted and incomplete, with important and sustained effects upon everyday life, social participation and return to work. We will pilot our resource among a purposively sampled patient and family population and evaluate it using individual cognitive interviews to elicit "real time" perspectives and to ameliorate "developer effects" and bias.