TY - JOUR
T1 - Instruments to assess post-intensive care syndrome assessment
T2 - a scoping review and modified Delphi method study
AU - Nakanishi, Nobuto
AU - Liu, Keibun
AU - Kawauchi, Akira
AU - Okamura, Masatsugu
AU - Tanaka, Kohei
AU - Katayama, Sho
AU - Mitani, Yuki
AU - Ota, Kohei
AU - Taito, Shunsuke
AU - Fudeyasu, Kenichi
AU - Masuka, Yuki
AU - Yoshihiro, Shodai
AU - Utsumi, Shu
AU - Nishikimi, Mitsuaki
AU - Masuda, Mamoru
AU - Iida, Yuki
AU - Kawai, Yusuke
AU - Hatakeyama, Junji
AU - Hifumi, Toru
AU - Unoki, Takeshi
AU - Kawakami, Daisuke
AU - Obata, Kengo
AU - Katsukawa, Hajime
AU - Sumita, Hidenori
AU - Morisawa, Tomoyuki
AU - Takahashi, Masahiro
AU - Tsuboi, Norihiko
AU - Kozu, Ryo
AU - Takaki, Shunsuke
AU - Haruna, Junpei
AU - Fujinami, Yoshihisa
AU - Nosaka, Nobuyuki
AU - Miyamoto, Kyohei
AU - Nakamura, Kensuke
AU - Kondo, Yutaka
AU - Inoue, Shigeaki
AU - Nishida, Osamu
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Background: The assessment of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is challenging due to the numerous types of instruments. We herein attempted to identify and propose recommendations for instruments to assess PICS in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify PICS follow-up studies at and after hospital discharge between 2014 and 2022. Assessment instruments used more than two times were included in the modified Delphi consensus process. A modified Delphi meeting was conducted three times by the PICS committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and each score was rated as not important (score: 1–3), important, but not critical (4–6), and critical (7–9). We included instruments with ≥ 70% of respondents rating critical and ≤ 15% of respondents rating not important. Results: In total, 6972 records were identified in this scoping review, and 754 studies were included in the analysis. After data extraction, 107 PICS assessment instruments were identified. The modified Delphi meeting reached 20 PICS assessment instrument recommendations: (1) in the physical domain: the 6-min walk test, MRC score, and grip strength, (2) in cognition: MoCA, MMSE, and SMQ, (3) in mental health: HADS, IES-R, and PHQ-9, (4) in the activities of daily living: the Barthel Index, IADL, and FIM, (5) in quality of life: SF-36, SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, 3L, and VAS (6), in sleep and pain: PSQI and Brief Pain Inventory, respectively, and (7) in the PICS-family domain: SF-36, HADS, and IES-R. Conclusion: Based on a scoping review and the modified Delphi method, 20 PICS assessment instruments are recommended to assess physical, cognitive, mental health, activities of daily living, quality of life, sleep, and pain in ICU survivors and their families.
AB - Background: The assessment of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is challenging due to the numerous types of instruments. We herein attempted to identify and propose recommendations for instruments to assess PICS in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify PICS follow-up studies at and after hospital discharge between 2014 and 2022. Assessment instruments used more than two times were included in the modified Delphi consensus process. A modified Delphi meeting was conducted three times by the PICS committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and each score was rated as not important (score: 1–3), important, but not critical (4–6), and critical (7–9). We included instruments with ≥ 70% of respondents rating critical and ≤ 15% of respondents rating not important. Results: In total, 6972 records were identified in this scoping review, and 754 studies were included in the analysis. After data extraction, 107 PICS assessment instruments were identified. The modified Delphi meeting reached 20 PICS assessment instrument recommendations: (1) in the physical domain: the 6-min walk test, MRC score, and grip strength, (2) in cognition: MoCA, MMSE, and SMQ, (3) in mental health: HADS, IES-R, and PHQ-9, (4) in the activities of daily living: the Barthel Index, IADL, and FIM, (5) in quality of life: SF-36, SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, 3L, and VAS (6), in sleep and pain: PSQI and Brief Pain Inventory, respectively, and (7) in the PICS-family domain: SF-36, HADS, and IES-R. Conclusion: Based on a scoping review and the modified Delphi method, 20 PICS assessment instruments are recommended to assess physical, cognitive, mental health, activities of daily living, quality of life, sleep, and pain in ICU survivors and their families.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85175791560&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85175791560&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13054-023-04681-6
DO - 10.1186/s13054-023-04681-6
M3 - Article
C2 - 37936249
AN - SCOPUS:85175791560
SN - 1364-8535
VL - 27
JO - Critical Care
JF - Critical Care
IS - 1
M1 - 430
ER -