Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42213655›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Family-led post-ICU discharge intervention for tracheostomized patients in India: Feasibility and formative impact evaluation.

Swagata Tripathy, Asha P Shetty, Upendra Hansda, Nanda KumarP, Alok Kumar Sahoo, Mahalingam V, Sujata Mahapatra, Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Parnandi Bhaskar Rao, Kasturi Sanyal and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Swagata TripathyDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5315-6477
Asha P ShettyCollege of Nursing, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5438-4722
Upendra HansdaDepartment of Trauma and Emergency, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5703-4135
Nanda KumarPCollege of Nursing, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Alok Kumar SahooDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5006-5513
Mahalingam VCollege of Nursing, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Sujata MahapatraCollege of Nursing, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Jayanta Kumar MitraDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Parnandi Bhaskar RaoDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2731-5657
Kasturi SanyalDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Itimayee PandaDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Guruprasad NDepartment of Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1758-2900
Jagannath SahooDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Rashan HaniffaCentre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Abi BeaneCentre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurvival after critical illness is increasing, but many patients remain chronically critically ill (CCI), dependent on tracheostomy and ongoing care. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), long-term facilities are scarce, costly, and often excluded from insurance, leading to prolonged ICU stays, hospital-acquired complications, and constrained bed capacity. Family-centred discharge interventions may provide a safe, cost-conscious alternative, but evidence on feasibility, acceptability, and implementation success in LMICs is limited.

methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods formative evaluation of the AIIMS ICU Rehabilitation (AIR) intervention, a co-designed, multi-component programme supporting the transition of tracheostomised patients from ICU to home care at a public tertiary hospital in India (2021-2024). The intervention comprised structured carer training, a mobile health communication platform, an equipment rental-retrieval bank, and post-discharge follow-up including home visits. Implementation outcomes were assessed using the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions and the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. Quantitative measures included validated implementation scales assessing acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness of the intervention, as well as carer confidence, quality of life and caregiver burden. Semi-structured interviews assessed stakeholder barriers and facilitations to implementation analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

resultsOf 762 patients screened, 314 were eligible and 300 dyads (96%) consented. Recruitment shifted from research-led to 98.5% clinician or family referral by year three. Carers and patients rated the intervention highly feasible, acceptable, and appropriate (median AIM 20, IAM 19.5, FIM 19.5), with greater endorsement than healthcare staff. Confidence improved with training: 66% of carers completed at least three structured training sessions and 61% achieved predefined competence after three training sessions. The mobile application was installed by 74% of dyads although WhatsApp was frequently preferred for communication with the care team. More than half accessed equipment through the rental-retrieval bank, and 91% of eligible families received in-person post-discharge follow-up. Qualitative findings identified barriers including carer reluctance in younger trauma cases, medicolegal concerns, fragmented training, and socioeconomic constraints. Facilitators included trust in clinicians, flexible training approaches, and ongoing post-discharge support.

conclusionThe AIR intervention is feasible, acceptable, and adaptable in a public LMIC setting. Carer confidence increased during the intervention period and family-led home transition for tracheostomised ICU survivors was possible while identifying contextual barriers and facilitators relevant for scale-up. These findings informed refinement of the intervention, such as including targeted patient selection, early recruitment, and peer-supported training, and will guide a planned multicentre summative evaluation assessing effectiveness, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

FamilyIntensive Care UnitsPatient DischargeTracheostomyAdultAgedCaregiversCritical IllnessFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID42213655
PMCPMC13221049

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.