Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42729946›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026

Access to and perceived value of post-ICU follow-up: an international cross-sectional survey of ICU professionals and adult critical illness survivors.

Anne-Françoise Rousseau, Susannah Leaver, Kristina Fuest, Victoria Metaxa, Guy François, Bernard Lambermont, Stefan J Schaller, Richard Rezar, Margo M C van Mol, Michael Beil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 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

10 authors.

Anne-Françoise RousseauDepartment of Intensive Care, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Susannah LeaverDepartment of Intensive Care, St George's NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Kristina FuestDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Munich, Germany.
Victoria MetaxaDepartment of Intensive Care, King's College Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Guy FrançoisEuropean Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.
Bernard LambermontDepartment of Intensive Care, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Stefan J SchallerMedical University of Vienna, Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Richard RezarDepartment of Cardiology and Intensive Care, Clinic of Internal Medicine II, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Margo M C van MolDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Michael BeilDepartment of Medicine, NHS Highland, Inverness, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is a frequent and debilitating consequence of critical illness, yet access to structured post-ICU follow-up remains inconsistent. Methods: We conducted an ESICM-endorsed, international, cross-sectional online survey using two complementary questionnaires to explore the perspectives of ICU healthcare professionals (ICU-HP) and adult ICU survivors (ICU-S), disseminated through ESICM communication channels, professional networks, patient associations, and social media. Both surveys explored post-ICU follow-up practices, access to care, perceived benefits, and unmet needs. Results: A total of 276 ICU-HP from 242 hospitals across 43 countries and 106 ICU-S from 47 ICUs across 6 countries participated in the survey. Post-ICU follow-up was reported to be available by 45% of ICUs and accessed by 58.5% of patients. Among ICU survivors, 55.7% reported having received information about PICS, while 86.2% of those not informed indicated it would have been useful. Follow-up practices showed marked heterogeneity in patient selection, timing, content, and duration. Among patients who had access to post-ICU follow-up, screening of all three core PICS domains (physical, cognitive and psychological functions) was performed in only 40.7% of cases. Nevertheless, 56.4% reported feeling better following follow-up, mainly due to perceived support and improved understanding of their condition. Among ICU-HPs offering follow-up, 55.1% reported that this activity had led to changes in clinical practice within their ICU, and 97.4% expressed intent to continue their programs although limited training opportunities and a lack of formal guidance were reported by a substantial proportion of respondents. Conclusions: This survey demonstrates inconsistent access to post-ICU follow-up and information about PICS, despite the perceived value of post-ICU follow-up among both ICU-S and ICU-HP. Improving post-ICU care will require dedicated training and structured guidelines, highlighting the key role of scientific societies in ICU survivorship care.

Indexed as

Follow-upHealth service researchPatient-centred carePost-intensive care syndromeSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID42729946
PMCPMC13564131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.