Annals of Intensive Care (Jul 2024)

Post-intensive care syndrome screening: a French multicentre survey

  • Maïté Agbakou,
  • Margot Combet,
  • Maëlle Martin,
  • Gauthier Blonz,
  • Luc Desmedt,
  • Amélie Seguin,
  • Jérémie Lemarié,
  • Olivier Zambon,
  • Jean Reignier,
  • Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou,
  • Stephan Ehrmann,
  • Emmanuel Canet

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01341-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), defined as physical, cognitive, and mental-health symptoms persisting long after intensive-care-unit (ICU) discharge, is increasingly recognised as a healthcare priority. Data on screening for PICS are sparse. Our objective here was to describe post-ICU screening in France, with special attention to visit availability and evaluations done during visits. Methods We conducted an online multicentre survey by emailing an anonymous 43-item questionnaire to French ICUs. For each ICU, a single survey was sent to either the head or the intensivist in charge of follow-up visits. Results Of 252 ICUs invited to participate, 161 (63.9%) returned the completed survey. Among them, 46 (28.6%) offered follow-up visits. Usually, a single visit led by an intensivist was scheduled 3 to 6 months after ICU discharge. Approximately 50 patients/year/ICU, that is, about 5% of admitted patients, attended post-ICU visits. The main criteria used to select patients for follow-up were ICU stay and/or invasive mechanical ventilation duration longer than 48 h, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among ICUs offering visits, 80% used validated instruments to screen for PICS. Of the 115 ICUs not offering follow-up, 50 (43.5%) indicated an intention to start follow-up within the next year. The main barriers to offering follow-up were lack of available staff and equipment or not viewing PICS screening as a priority. Half the ICUs offering visits worked with an established network of post-ICU care professionals, and another 17% were setting up such a network. Obstacles to network creation were lack of interest among healthcare professionals and lack of specific training in PICS. Conclusion Only a small minority of ICU survivors received follow-up designed to detect PICS. Less than a third of ICUs offered follow-up visits but nearly another third planned to set up such visits within the next year. Recommendations issued by French health authorities in 2023 can be expected to improve the availability and standardisation of post-ICU follow-up.

Keywords