Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37384627›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

A protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of an Early Psychiatric Assessment, Referral, and Intervention Study (EPARIS) for intensive care patients.

Dylan Flaws, Chelsea Allen, Stuart Baker, Adrian Barnett, Olivia Metcalf, Hamish Pollock, Mahesh Ramanan, Alexis Tabah, Tracey Varker

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dylan FlawsCritical Care Research Group, The Prince Charles Hospital, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4094-5936
Chelsea AllenAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia.
Stuart BakerDepartment of Intensive Care, Redcliffe Hospital, Queensland, Australia.
Adrian BarnettAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6339-0374
Olivia MetcalfPhoenix Australia, Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Hamish PollockDepartment of Intensive Care, Redcliffe Hospital, Queensland, Australia.
Mahesh RamananDepartment of Intensive Care, Caboolture Hospital, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4509-4015
Alexis TabahSchool of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia.
Tracey VarkerPhoenix Australia, Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AURedcliffe Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUp to 80% of Intensive Care Unit patients experience physical, cognitive, and/or psychological complications post-discharge, known as 'Post Intensive Care Syndrome' (PICS). Early diagnosis and intervention are a priority, but while current post-intensive care follow-up processes endorse a multidisciplinary model, incorporating a psychiatric consultation has not been studied.

methodsA pilot, open-label randomised controlled trial was developed by a multidisciplinary team to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating a psychiatric review into an existing post-ICU clinic. The study will run for 12 months and aim to recruit 30 participants. Inclusion criteria for participants: a) ICU admission greater than 48 hours, b) no cognitive impairment that prevents participation, c) ≥ 18 years old, d) residing in Australia, e) fluent in English, f) able to provide GP information, and g) likely to be contactable in 6 months. Patient recruitment will be at Redcliffe Hospital, Queensland, Australia, and will involve patients attending the Redcliffe post intensive care clinic. Participants will be allocated to intervention or control using block randomisation and allocation concealment. Participants allocated to the control arm will receive the standard cares provided by the clinic, which involves an unstructured interview about their ICU experience and a battery of surveys about their psychological, cognitive, and physical function. Those allocated to the intervention arm will receive these same cares as well as an appointment with a psychiatrist for a single session intervention. The psychiatric intervention will involve a comprehensive review, including comorbid disorders, substance use, suicidal ideation, psychosocial stressors, social/emotional supports. Psychoeducation and initial treatment will be provided as indicated and recommendations given to the patient and their GP about how to access ongoing care. In addition to surveys conducted as part of standard clinic cares, all participants will complete additional questionnaires about their history, hospital experience, mental and physical health as well as employment circumstances. All participants will be followed up 6 months after their appointment and will be invited to complete follow-up questionnaires about their mental and physical health, as well as health service use and employment circumstances. The trial has been registered with ANZCTR (ACTRN12622000894796).

resultsTo evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to the patient population. Differences between groups will be assessed using an independent samples t-test. Resource requirements to administer the intervention will be evaluated by reporting the mean duration of the EPARIS assessment and approximate cost per patient to provide this service. To estimate the effect size of any treatment effects, changes in secondary outcome measures between baseline and 6 months will be compared between intervention and control groups using Analysis of Covariance regression. As this is a pilot, we will not use p-values or test a null hypothesis, but will give confidence intervals.

conclusionsThis protocol provides a pragmatic evaluation of the acceptability of introducing early psychiatric assessment into an existing post-ICU follow-up process, and if considered acceptable will inform future research into the efficacy and generalisability of the intervention. The strengths of EPARIS are the prospective, longitudinal design with a control population, and its use of validated post-ICU outcome measures.

Indexed as

AftercarePatient DischargeAdolescentCritical CareHumansPilot ProjectsPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReferral and ConsultationReview Literature as Topic

Identifiers

PMID37384627
PMCPMC10309621
OpenAlexW4382631216

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.