Advertisement
Research Article| Volume 58, P47-53, March 2023

Patient and caregiver experiences with a telemedicine intensive care unit recovery clinic

  • Author Footnotes
    1 Note: Mariya Kovaleva completed this study as a post-doctoral scholar at Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, funded by the Center for Research Development and Scholarship. She is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Nursing.
    Mariya A. Kovaleva
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), College of Nursing – Omaha Division, 985330 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-5330.
    Footnotes
    1 Note: Mariya Kovaleva completed this study as a post-doctoral scholar at Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, funded by the Center for Research Development and Scholarship. She is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Nursing.
    Affiliations
    University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Nursing, Omaha, NE
    Search for articles by this author
  • Abigail C. Jones
    Affiliations
    Yale University School of Nursing, Orange, CT

    Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, TN
    Search for articles by this author
  • Christine Cleary Kimpel
    Affiliations
    Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, TN

    Tennessee Valley Health Care System, Nashville, TN, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jana Lauderdale
    Affiliations
    Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, TN
    Search for articles by this author
  • Carla M. Sevin
    Affiliations
    Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
    Search for articles by this author
  • Joanna L. Stollings
    Affiliations
    Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Critical Illness, Brain dysfunction, and Survivorship (CIBS) Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
    Search for articles by this author
  • James C. Jackson
    Affiliations
    Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

    Critical Illness, Brain dysfunction, and Survivorship (CIBS) Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

    Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

    Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Nashville, TN
    Search for articles by this author
  • Leanne M. Boehm
    Affiliations
    Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, TN
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 Note: Mariya Kovaleva completed this study as a post-doctoral scholar at Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, funded by the Center for Research Development and Scholarship. She is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Nursing.
Published:November 15, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2022.11.002

      Highlights

      • Most participants found telemedicine delivery mode of an ICU-RC acceptable.
      • Caregiver involvement depended on patient self-management and technical ability.
      • Recommendations included earlier, more frequent, and more customized visits.
      • Neuropsychological assessment must occur in private.

      Abstract

      Background

      Intensive Care Unit Recovery Clinics (ICU-RCs) were founded to address post-intensive care syndrome among ICU survivors. Telemedicine ICU-RCs may facilitate access for more ICU survivors, however, patient and caregiver experiences with telemedicine ICU-RCs have not been explored qualitatively.

      Objective

      To explore patient and informal caregiver experiences with a telemedicine ICU-RC.

      Methods

      Our qualitative exploratory cross-sectional study was guided by qualitative description methodology. Telemedicine ICU-RC visits were conducted at 3- and 12-weeks post-discharge following critical illness. Patients, and caregivers when available, met with an ICU pharmacist, ICU physician, and a neuropsychologist via Zoom. Thereafter, we conducted qualitative (1:1) telephone interviews with 14 patients and 12 caregivers recruited purposefully. Data were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

      Results

      Five themes were identified: (1) general impressions of the intervention; (2) intervention organization and delivery; (3) intervention substance; (4) caregiver participation; and (5) ways to improve the intervention. Participants found the telemedicine delivery acceptable, convenient, time-saving, and conducive to thorough discussions. Participants appreciated the information, reassurance, and validation. Attention to mental health during the visits was strongly endorsed. Caregiver involvement depended on patient self-management and technical ability. Suggestions included scheduling a 1-week post-discharge visit, more follow-up visits, and individualizing content for in-depth discussions, including mental health evaluation.

      Conclusions

      The study results enhance the understanding of patient and caregiver experiences with a telemedicine ICU-RC. Participants’ narratives helped to formulate recommendations to improve telemedicine ICU-RC delivery and content. Acceptability of this intervention indicates the potential for wider implementation of telemedicine ICU-RCs to reach more ICU survivors.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Heart & Lung: The Journal of Cardiopulmonary and Acute Care
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Critical Care Statistics. Society of Critical Care Medicine. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.sccm.org/Communications/Critical-Care-Statistics

        • Nguyen NT
        • Chinn J
        • Nahmias J
        • et al.
        Outcomes and mortality among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at US Medical Centers.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4e210417https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0417
        • Nguyen Y-L
        • Angus DC
        • Boumendil A
        • et al.
        The challenge of admitting the very elderly to intensive care.
        Ann Intensive Care. 2011; 1: 29https://doi.org/10.1186/2110-5820-1-29
        • Needham DM
        • Davidson J
        • Cohen H
        • et al.
        Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders’ conference.
        Crit Care Med. 2012; 40: 502-509https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e318232da75
        • Yuan C
        • Timmins F
        • Thompson DR.
        Post-intensive care syndrome: a concept analysis.
        Int J Nurs Stud. 2021; 114103814https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103814
        • Hua M
        • Gong MN
        • Brady J
        • et al.
        Early and late unplanned rehospitalizations for survivors of critical illness*.
        Crit Care Med. 2015; 43: 430-438https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000717
        • Bloom SL
        • Stollings JL
        • Kirkpatrick O
        • et al.
        Randomized clinical trial of an ICU recovery pilot program for survivors of critical illness.
        Crit Care Med. 2019; 47: 1337-1345https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003909
        • Sevin CM
        • Jackson JC.
        Post-ICU clinics should be staffed by ICU clinicians.
        Crit Care Med. 2019; 47: 268-272https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003535
        • Griffiths RD
        • Jones C.
        Seven lessons from 20 years of follow-up of intensive care unit survivors.
        Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007; 13: 508-513https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282efae05
        • Mikkelsen ME
        • Still M
        • Anderson BJ
        • et al.
        Society of critical Care Medicine's international consensus conference on prediction and identification of long-term impairments after critical illness.
        Crit Care Med. 2020; 48: 1670-1679https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004586
        • Danesh V
        • Boehm LM
        • Eaton TL
        • et al.
        Characteristics of post-ICU and post-COVID recovery clinics in 29 U.S. health systems.
        Crit Care Explor. 2022; 4: e0658https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000658
        • Snell KP
        • Beiter CL
        • Hall EL
        • et al.
        A novel approach to ICU survivor care: a population health quality improvement project.
        Crit Care Med. 2020; 48: e1164-e1170https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004579
        • Jensen JF
        • Thomsen T
        • Overgaard D
        • et al.
        Impact of follow-up consultations for ICU survivors on post-ICU syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Intensive Care Med. 2015; 41: 763-775https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3689-1
        • Madara J
        • Baram M.
        Post-ICU syndrome clinics may decrease critical care provider burnout.
        Crit Care Med. 2020; 48 ([abstract 805]): 382
        • Prinjha S
        • Field K
        • Rowan K.
        What patients think about ICU follow-up services: a qualitative study.
        Crit Care. 2009; 13: R46https://doi.org/10.1186/cc7769
        • Kirkpatrick O
        • Bloom S
        • Stollings J
        • et al.
        Barriers to post-intensive care follow-up.
        Crit Care Med. 2019; 47 ([abstract 838]): 398
        • Haines KJ
        • McPeake J
        • Hibbert E
        • et al.
        Enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups following critical illness: the Thrive Collaboratives.
        Crit Care Med. 2019; 47: 1194-1200https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003818
        • Bashshur RL
        • Bashshur MJ
        • Krupinski EA.
        Telemedicine, precision medicine, and regionalization.
        Telemedicine J E Health. 2022; 28: 599-601https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2021.0357
      2. Telehealth. MedlinePlus. Updated August 10, 2021. Accessed February 20, 2021. https://medlineplus.gov/telehealth.html

        • Bull TP
        • Dewar AR
        • Malvey DM
        • et al.
        Considerations for the telehealth systems of tomorrow: an analysis of student perceptions of telehealth technologies.
        JMIR Med Educ. 2016; 2: e11https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.5392
        • Jones C
        • Skirrow P
        • Griffiths RD
        • et al.
        Rehabilitation after critical illness: a randomized, controlled trial.
        Crit Care Med. 2003; 31: 2456-2461https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000089938.56725.33
        • Sandelowski M.
        Whatever happened to qualitative description?.
        Res Nurs Health. 2000; 23: 334-340https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4≤334::AID-NUR9≥3.0.CO;2-G
        • Rawal G
        • Yadav S
        • Kumar R.
        Post-intensive care syndrome: an overview.
        J Transl Int Med. 2017; 5: 90-92https://doi.org/10.1515/jtim-2016-0016
        • Brown SM
        • Bose S
        • Banner-Goodspeed V
        • et al.
        Approaches to addressing post-intensive care syndrome among intensive care unit survivors. A narrative review.
        Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019; 16: 947-956https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201812-913FR
        • Wittich W
        • Phillips N
        • Nasreddine ZS
        • et al.
        Sensitivity and specificity of the Montreal cognitive assessment modified for individuals who are visually impaired.
        J Visual Impairm Blindness. 2010; 104: 360-368
        • Hosey MM
        • Bienvenu OJ
        • Dinglas VD
        • et al.
        The IES-R remains a core outcome measure for PTSD in critical illness survivorship research.
        Critical Care. 2019; 23: 1-2https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2630-3
        • Chenoweth L
        • King MT
        • Jeon YH
        • et al.
        Caring for Aged Dementia Care Resident Study (CADRES) of person-centred care, dementia-care mapping, and usual care in dementia: a cluster-randomised trial.
        Lancet Neurol. 2009; 8: 317-325https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70045-6
        • Fogarty LA
        • Curbow BA
        • Wingard JR
        • et al.
        Can 40 seconds of compassion reduce patient anxiety?.
        J Clinical Oncol. 1999; 17: 371-379https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.1.371
        • Ward MM
        • Sundaramurthy S
        • Lotstein D
        • et al.
        Participatory patient-physician communication and morbidity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2003; 49: 810-818https://doi.org/10.1002/art.11467
        • Harris PA
        • Taylor R
        • Thielke R
        • et al.
        Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.
        J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
        • Hsieh H-F
        • Shannon SE.
        Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
        Qual Health Res. 2005; 15: 1277-1288https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
        • Miles MB
        • Huberman AM.
        Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook.
        Sage Publications, 1994
        • Tong A
        • Sainsbury P
        • Craig J.
        Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.
        Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19: 349-357https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
        • Lincoln Y
        • Guba EG.
        Naturalistic Inquiry.
        Sage, 1985 (1985)
        • McPeake J
        • Boehm LM
        • Hibbert E
        • et al.
        Key components of ICU recovery programs: what did patients report provided benefit?.
        Crit Care Explor. 2020; 2https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000088
      3. Nanda M, Sharma R. A review of patient satisfaction and experience with telemedicine: a virtual solution during and beyond COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2020.0570

        • Jalilian L
        • Cannesson M
        • Kamdar N.
        Post-ICU recovery clinics in the era of digital health and telehealth.
        Crit Care Med. 2019; 47: e796https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003846
        • Sevin CM
        • Boehm LM
        • Hibbert E
        • et al.
        Optimizing critical illness recovery: perspectives and solutions from the caregivers of ICU survivors.
        Crit Care Explor. 2021; 3: e0420https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000420
        • van Beusekom I
        • Bakhshi-Raiez F
        • de Keizer NF
        • et al.
        Reported burden on informal caregivers of ICU survivors: a literature review.
        Crit Care. 2016; 20https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1185-9
      4. Haines KJ, Hibbert E, Leggett N, et al. Transitions of care after critical illness – challenges to recovery and adaptive problem solving. Crit Care Med. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000005095

        • Novick G.
        Is There a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?.
        Res Nurs Health. 2008; 31: 391-398https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20259