Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41316422›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025

Non-pharmacological post-intensive care interventions to improve patient outcome following critical illness: a scoping review.

Owen Gustafson, Rebecca Dalton, Neal Thurley, Natalie Pattison, Jonathan Bedford, Peter Watkinson, Sarah Vollam

Abstract readScoping ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2025. 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
–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.

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.

  1. Review
  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

7 authors.

Owen GustafsonCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. owen.gustafson@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.
Rebecca DaltonOxford Critical Care, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Neal ThurleyBodleian Healthcare Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Natalie PattisonSchool of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Jonathan BedfordCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter WatkinsonCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah VollamCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

National Institute of Health and Care Research NIHR206266
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients discharged from intensive care units (ICU) commonly experience multiple problems in care during the acute hospital period. These can negatively impact their recovery and contribute to poor outcomes such as ICU readmission or in-hospital mortality. Many studies have aimed to address this through non-pharmacological interventions. However there has been no comprehensive synthesis of this literature. To improve care during the post-ICU in-hospital period, it is important to understand existing interventions and highlight priorities to guide future research. We therefore aimed to assess the extent of current literature relating to non-pharmacological interventions delivered to critical care survivors in hospital.

methodsWe systematically searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and CENTRAL) and grey literature to 4th February 2025. Search results were independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers at title, abstract and full text. Reports relating to non-pharmacological interventions delivered to adult patients in hospital following discharge from critical care were included. Study characteristics, intervention delivery and development, and outcomes were extracted using a formal data charting process.

resultsSearches yielded 41,242 reports, from which 202 met the inclusion criteria. The most common interventions were critical care outreach/follow-up (CCOT/FU) (n = 93, 46%), physical rehabilitation (n = 77, 38.1%), and nutrition (n = 36, 17.8%). A small proportion of reports described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 31, 15.3%), of which few evaluated either CCOT/FU (n = 5, 16.1%) or multicomponent interventions (n = 6, 19.4%). Positive primary outcomes were reported by 51.6% (n = 16) of the RCTs (five of which were feasibility outcomes). Details of intervention implementation/training was included in only 17.6% (n = 18/102) of original studies. Interventions delivered by CCOT/FU included onward referrals, ordering investigations, family and patient support, and education provision.

conclusionsThis review provides a comprehensive summary of the current knowledge of non-pharmacological interventions delivered following discharge from critical care, to improve outcomes. Although this is a large body of literature, it is limited by a lack of RCTs, and uncommon reporting of intervention development, implementation or training. Multicomponent interventions and CCOT/FU showed promising initial results but were infrequently evaluated in clinical trials, which should be considered for future investigation.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessCritical CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsPatient DischargeCritical careICU follow-upOutreachRecoveryScoping review

Identifiers

PMID41316422
PMCPMC12764170

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.