Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCastillo, MI
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, M
dc.contributor.authorDavis, C
dc.contributor.authorPowell, M
dc.contributor.authorLe Brocque, R
dc.contributor.authorUllman, A
dc.contributor.authorWetzig, K
dc.contributor.authorRattray, J
dc.contributor.authorHull, AM
dc.contributor.authorKenardy, J
dc.contributor.authorAitken, LM
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-07T22:32:51Z
dc.date.available2020-05-07T22:32:51Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn1036-7314
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.aucc.2020.01.002
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/393523
dc.description.abstractBackground: Interventions to support psychological recovery after critical illness, including information provision via an intensive care unit (ICU) diary or discharge summary, have been widely adopted in some regions, albeit without strong empirical evidence. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability, for patients, family members, and clinicians, of information provision via an ICU diary or discharge summary to support psychological recovery for critical illness survivors. Methods: This was a pilot, partially randomised patient preference study in a mixed ICU in a tertiary hospital in Australia. Eligible patients were those in the ICU for >24 h and who were able to converse in English. Interventions were ICU diary or discharge summary compared with usual care. Feasibility was assessed throughout the study process, and acceptability assessed 3 and 6 months after hospital discharge, with data analysed descriptively and thematically. Results: Sixty-one patients were recruited; 45 completed 3-month follow-up (74%), and 37 (61%), 6-month follow-up. Participants were medical (39%), surgical (30%), and trauma (31%) patients; aged 55 [interquartile range (IQR): 36–67] years; and stayed in the ICU for 7 [IQR: 3–13] days and hospital for 23 [IQR: 14–32] days. Within the partially randomised framework, 34 patients chose their intervention – four chose usual care, 10 ICU diary, and 20 discharge summary. The remaining 27 patients were randomised – nine usual care, 10 ICU diary, and seven discharge summary. The majority (>90%) considered each intervention helpful during recovery; however, a significant proportion of patients reported distress associated with reading the ICU diary (42%) or discharge summary (15%). Clinicians reported they were hesitant to make diary entries. Conclusions: When given a choice, more patients chose a discharge summary over the ICU diary or usual care. Participants considered both interventions acceptable. Given the reports of distress associated with information provision, clear empirical evidence is required to determine effectiveness, optimal timing, support needed, and for whom they should be used. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12615001079538
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAustralian Critical Care
dc.subject.fieldofresearchNursing
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1110
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1103
dc.subject.keywordsCritical care
dc.subject.keywordsDischarge summary
dc.subject.keywordsICU diary
dc.subject.keywordsIntensive care unit
dc.subject.keywordsPatient information
dc.titleFeasibility and acceptability of conducting a partially randomised controlled trial examining interventions to improve psychological health after discharge from the intensive care unit
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationCastillo, MI; Mitchell, M; Davis, C; Powell, M; Le Brocque, R; Ullman, A; Wetzig, K; Rattray, J; Hull, AM; Kenardy, J; Aitken, LM, Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a partially randomised controlled trial examining interventions to improve psychological health after discharge from the intensive care unit, Australian Critical Care, 2020
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-01-06
dcterms.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.date.updated2020-04-30T01:47:42Z
dc.description.versionAccepted Manuscript (AM)
gro.description.notepublicThis publication was entered as an advanced online version.
gro.rights.copyright© 2020 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Australia. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorUllman, Amanda J.
gro.griffith.authorAitken, Leanne M.
gro.griffith.authorMitchell, Marion L.
gro.griffith.authorCastillo Escobar, Isabel I.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record