ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Who is responsible for follow-up after critical illness? GP, ICU and patient perspectives.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCritical illness is associated with a range of physical, psychological, medical and social sequalae. It is unclear from existing clinical guidance who should be responsible for follow-up of these sequalae following hospital discharge.
aimTo explore the views of views of UK general practitioners (GPs), intensive care medicine (ICM) consultants, and patients on responsibility for follow-up care for critical illness survivors following hospital discharge.
methodsDual methods study based in the UK. Data were collected from UK ICM consultants, GPs and patients using online questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. Analysis was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
resultsThere was a lack of clarity within and between groups on who is responsible for follow-up. We identified various potential explanations for the lack of consensus including variable awareness of critical illness survivorship, ambiguity within clinical guidelines, lack of clarity on the boundaries of critical illness morbidity, evolving roles of healthcare providers, and significant workload and resource pressures within the UK healthcare system.
conclusionThe experiences of healthcare professionals and patients indicate the current lack of clarity could negatively impacting patient care and outcomes. Consensus is required on how we should define the boundaries of critical illness sequalae, and which clinical groups are responsible for care across the various transitions of care experienced by intensive care unit (ICU) survivors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.