Danesh Valerie, Boehm Leanne M, Eaton Tammy L, Arroliga Alejandro C, Mayer Kirby P, Kesler Shelli R, Bakhru Rita N, Baram Michael, Bellinghausen Amy L, Biehl Michelle, Dangayach Neha S, Goldstein Nir M, Hoehn K Sarah, Islam Marjan, Jagpal Sugeet, Johnson Annie B, Jolley Sarah E, Kloos Janet A, Mahoney Eric J, Maley Jason H, Martin Sara F, McSparron Jakob I, Mery Marissa, Saft Howard, Santhosh Lekshmi, Schwab Kristin, Villalba Dario, Sevin Carla M, Montgomery Ashley A
Center for Applied Health Research, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, TX.
School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Crit Care Explor. 2022 Mar 9;4(3):e0658. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000658. eCollection 2022 Mar.
The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States.
Cross-sectional survey.
Thirty-nine RCs, representing a combined 156 hospitals within 29 health systems participated.
None.
None.
RC demographics, referral criteria, and operating characteristics were collected, including measures used to assess physical, psychologic, and cognitive recoveries. Thirty-nine RC surveys were completed (94% response rate). ICU-RC teams included physicians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and advanced practice providers. Funding sources for ICU-RCs included clinical billing ( = 20, 77%), volunteer staff support ( = 15, 58%), institutional staff/space support ( = 13, 46%), and grant or foundation funding ( = 3, 12%). Forty-six percent of RCs report patient visit durations of 1 hour or longer. ICU-RC teams reported use of validated scales to assess psychologic recovery (93%), physical recovery (89%), and cognitive recovery (86%) more often in standard visits compared with COVID-RC teams (psychologic, 54%; physical, 69%; and cognitive, 46%).
Operating structures of RCs vary, though almost all describe modest capacity and reliance on volunteerism and discretionary institutional support. ICU- and COVID-RCs in the United States employ varied funding sources and endorse different assessment measures during visits to guide care coordination. Common features include integration of ICU clinicians, interdisciplinary approach, and focus on severe critical illness. The heterogeneity in RC structures and processes contributes to future research on the optimal structure and process to achieve the best postintensive care syndrome and postacute sequelae of COVID outcomes.
危重病和新冠疫情造成的多方面长期损害需要在疾病康复阶段采取跨学科管理方法。需要深入了解来自不同卫生系统的康复诊所(RC)的结构和运作流程。本研究描述了美国部分大型卫生系统中现有及新设立的重症监护病房康复诊所(ICU-RC)和新冠康复诊所(COVID-RC)的结构和流程特点。
横断面调查。
39个康复诊所参与,代表29个卫生系统内总共156家医院。
无。
无。
收集了康复诊所的人口统计学数据、转诊标准和运作特征,包括用于评估身体、心理和认知恢复情况的指标。完成了39份康复诊所调查问卷(回复率94%)。ICU-RC团队包括医生、药剂师、社会工作者、物理治疗师和高级执业人员。ICU-RC的资金来源包括临床计费(n = 20,77%)、志愿者员工支持(n = 15,58%)、机构员工/空间支持(n = 13,46%)以及赠款或基金会资金(n = 3,12%)。46%的康复诊所报告患者就诊时间为1小时或更长。与COVID-RC团队相比,ICU-RC团队报告在标准就诊中更常使用经过验证的量表来评估心理恢复(93%)、身体恢复(89%)和认知恢复(86%)(心理方面,COVID-RC团队为54%;身体方面,为69%;认知方面,为46%)。
康复诊所的运作结构各不相同,不过几乎所有诊所都表示规模有限,依赖志愿服务和机构的自主支持。美国的ICU-RC和COVID-RC采用不同的资金来源,在就诊期间认可不同的评估措施以指导护理协调。共同特点包括重症监护病房临床医生的整合、跨学科方法以及对严重危重病的关注。康复诊所结构和流程的异质性有助于未来研究实现最佳重症监护后综合征和新冠疫情后急性后遗症的最佳结构和流程。