Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33980533›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Support and follow-up needs of patients discharged from intensive care after severe COVID-19: a mixed-methods study of the views of UK general practitioners and intensive care staff during the pandemic's first wave.

Ana Cristina Castro-Avila, Laura Jefferson, Veronica Dale, Karen Bloor

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Language Barriers and Other Determinants of Post-Intensive Care Unit Follow-Up: A 5-Year Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Comparison of 6-Month Outcomes of Survivors of COVID-19 versus Non-COVID-19 Critical Illness.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2022
    Observational
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ana Cristina Castro-AvilaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK ana.castro@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4475-4325
Laura JeffersonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2139-3555
Veronica DaleDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3783-2030
Karen BloorDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4852-9854
University of York · GBUniversidad del Desarrollo · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify follow-up services planned for patients with COVID-19 discharged from intensive care unit (ICU) and to explore the views of ICU staff and general practitioners (GPs) regarding these patients' future needs and care coordination.

designThis is a sequential mixed-methods study using online surveys and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey data were descriptively analysed.

settingGP surgeries and acute National Health Service Trusts in the UK.

participantsGPs and clinicians leading care for patients discharged from ICU. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Usual follow-up practice after ICU discharge, changes in follow-up during the pandemic, and GP awareness of follow-up and support needs of patients discharged from ICU.

resultsWe obtained 170 survey responses and conducted 23 interviews. Over 60% of GPs were unaware of the follow-up services generally provided by their local hospitals and whether or not these were functioning during the pandemic. Eighty per cent of ICUs reported some form of follow-up services, with 25% of these suspending provision during the peak of the pandemic and over half modifying their provision (usually to provide the service remotely). Common themes relating to barriers to provision of follow-up were funding complexities, remit and expertise, and communication between ICU and community services. Discharge documentation was described as poor and lacking key information. Both groups mentioned difficulties accessing services in the community and lack of clarity about who was responsible for referrals and follow-up.

conclusionsThe pandemic has highlighted long-standing issues of continuity of care and complex funding streams for post-ICU follow-up care. The large cohort of ICU patients admitted due to COVID-19 highlights the need for improved follow-up services and communication between specialists and GPs, not only for patients with COVID-19, but for all those discharged from ICU.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PractitionersCritical CareFollow-Up StudiesHumansPandemicsPatient DischargeSARS-CoV-2State MedicineUnited KingdomCOVID-19intensive & critical carerehabilitation medicine

Identifiers

PMID33980533
PMCPMC8117472
OpenAlexW3162405898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.