Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36033242›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2022

The Post-ICU presentation screen (PICUPS) and rehabilitation prescription (RP) for intensive care survivors part II: Clinical engagement and future directions for the national Post-Intensive care Rehabilitation Collaborative.

Zudin Puthucheary, Craig Brown, Evelyn Corner, Sarah Wallace, Julie Highfield, Danielle Bear, Nirandeep Rehill, Hugh Montgomery, Leanne Aitken, Lynne Turner-Stokes

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06038045 (PROSPER- Electronic Patient Reported OutcomeS to Empower Patients rEcoveR), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06038045 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

PROSPER- Electronic Patient Reported OutcomeS to Empower Patients rEcoveR

TypeobservationalSponsorQueen Mary University of LondonRan2023 to 2025Enrolled314ConditionsSurgery, Critical Illness, Trauma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Critical care and pandemic preparedness and response.British journal of anaesthesia · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Therapy professionals in critical care: A UK wide workforce survey.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Nutritional priorities in patients with severe COVID-19.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

10 authors.

Zudin PuthuchearyWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4267-1892
Craig BrownImperial College Health Partners (ICHP), London, UK.
Evelyn CornerDepartment of Heath Sciences, Brunel University London, London, UK.
Sarah WallaceWythenshawe Hospital Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Julie HighfieldCritical Care Directorate, University Hospital Wales, Wales, UK.
Danielle BearDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Nirandeep RehillUniversity College London Partners, London, UK.
Hugh MontgomeryCentre for Human Health and Performance, Dept Medicine, Anthropogenic Emissions, University College London, London, UK.
Leanne AitkenSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Lynne Turner-StokesDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Many Intensive Care Unit (ICU) survivors suffer from a multi- system disability, termed the post-intensive care syndrome. There is no current national coordination of either rehabilitation pathways or related data collection for them. In the last year, the need for tools to systematically identify the multidisciplinary rehabilitation needs of severely affected COVID-19 survivors has become clear. Such tools offer the opportunity to improve rehabilitation for Methods: Prospective service evaluation of 26 acute hospitals in England using the Post-ICU Presentation Screen (PICUPS) tool and the RP. The PICUPS tool comprised items in domains of a) Medical and essential care, b) Breathing and nutrition; c) Physical movement and d) Communication, cognition and behaviour. Results: No difference was seen in total PICUPS scores between patients with or without COVID-19 (77 (IQR 60-92) vs. 84 (IQR 68-97); Mann-Whitney z = -1.46, p = 0.144. A network analysis demonstrated that requirements for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, dietetics and clinical psychology were closely related and unaffected by COVID-19 infection status. A greater proportion of COVID-19 patients were referred for inpatient rehabilitation (13% vs. 7%) and community-based rehabilitation (36% vs.15%). The RP informed by the PICUPS tool generally specified a greater need for multi-professional input when compared to rehabilitation plans instituted. Conclusions: The PICUPS tool is feasible to implement as a screening mechanism for post-intensive care syndrome. No differences are seen in the rehabilitation needs of patients with and without COVID-19 infection. The RP could be the vehicle that drives the professional interventions across the transitions from acute to community care. No single discipline dominates the rehabilitation requirements of these patients, reinforcing the need for a personalised RP for critical illness survivors.

Indexed as

COVID-19intensive careRehabilitation needs

Identifiers

PMID36033242
PMCPMC9411763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.