Follow-up after intensive care: a single center study
- First Online:
- 382 Downloads
To study health problems, quality of life, functional status, and memory after intensive care.
Adult patients (n=346) discharged from a university hospital ICU.
Design and methods
Prospective cohort study. Follow-up patients were found using the ICU database and the Peoples Registry. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with the Short Form 36 (SF-36) 6 months after ICU discharge. Semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, Glasgow Outcome Score (recovery), and Karnofsky Index (functional status) were used at consultations 7–8 months after ICU discharge.
The SF-36 response rate was 64.5%, with scores significantly lower than population scores. Consultation patients (n=136) did not differ from the rest (n=210) regarding age, SAPS II scores, length of stay (LOS), and reasons for ICU admission. At follow-up 67.6% of consultation patients continued most activities, 75% looked after themselves, and 64.7% were non-workers, compared to 40.4% before the ICU admission. During and after the ICU stay, 40% lost more than 10 kg body weight. Fifty-eight (43%) could not remember anything from their ICU stay. At follow-up only 22 (16%) could remember having received information during their ICU stay. Three patients needed referral to other specialities.
We should focus more on optimizing symptom management and giving repeated information after ICU discharge. Nutritional status and weight loss is another area of concern. More research is needed to find out how the broad range of psychosocial and physical problems following an ICU stay relates to the stay.
KeywordsIntensive care Follow-up studies Patient outcome assessment Quality of life Health status Memory
- 1.Eddleston JM, White P, Guthrie E (2000) Survival, morbidity, and quality of life after discharge from intensive care. Crit Care Med 28:2293–2299Google Scholar
- 3.Konopad E, Noseworthy TW, Johnston R, Shustack A, Grace M (1995) Quality of life measures before and one year after admission to an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 23:1653–1659Google Scholar
- 14.Griffiths RD, Jones C (2002) Intensive care aftercare. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, pp 1–170Google Scholar
- 16.Ware J (1993) SF-36 Health Survey. Manual and interpretation guide. The health institute, Boston, Mass., USAGoogle Scholar
- 18.Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA (1984) Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol 2:187–193Google Scholar
- 19.Cytel Software Corporation StatXact. Cambridge SC, USA, 1999Google Scholar
- 20.Dragsted L, Qvist J, Madsen M (1990) Outcome from intensive care. IV. A 5-year study of 1308 patients: long-term outcome. Eur J Anaesthesiol 7:51–62Google Scholar
- 22.Zaren B, Bergstrom R (1989) Survival compared to the general population and changes in health status among intensive care patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 33:6–12Google Scholar
- 35.Schelling G, Stoll C, Haller M, Briegel J, Manert W, Hummel T, Lenhart A, Heyduck M, Polasek J, Meier M, Preuss U, Bullinger M, Schuffel W, Peter K (1998) Health-related quality of life and posttraumatic stress disorder in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 26:651–659Google Scholar
- 37.Jones C, Humphris GM, Griffiths RD (1998) Psychological morbidity following critical illness—the rationale for care after intensive care. Clin Intensive Care 9:199–205Google Scholar
- 38.Backman CG, Walther SM (2001) Use of a personal diary written on the ICU during critical illness. Intensive Care Med 27:426–429Google Scholar
- 39.Hames KC, Gager M, Waldmann CS (2001) Patient satisfaction with specialist ICU follow-up. Br J Anaesth 87:372–373Google Scholar
- 40.Wilkins A, Koshy G, Waldmann CS (1998) Long-term outcomes of patients in ICU with multi-organ failure. Br J Anaesth 81:651Google Scholar