Purpose To describe critical care patients with COVID-19 across England, Wales and Northern Ireland and compare them with a historic cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) and with international cohorts of COVID-19. Methods Extracted data on patient characteristics, acute illness severity, organ support and outcomes from the Case Mix Programme, the national clinical audit for adult critical care, for a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 (February to August 2020) are compared with a recent retrospective cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (2017–2019) and with other international cohorts of critical care patients with COVID-19, the latter identified from published reports. Results 10,834 patients with COVID-19 (70.1% male, median age 60 years, 32.6% non-white ethnicity, 39.4% obese, 8.2% at least one serious comorbidity) were admitted across 289 critical care units. Of these, 36.9% had a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of ≤ 13.3 kPa (≤ 100 mmHg) consistent with severe ARDS and 72% received invasive ventilation. Acute hospital mortality was 42%, higher than for 5782 critical care patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (24.7%), and most COVID-19 deaths (88.7%) occurred before 30 days. Meaningful international comparisons were limited due to lack of standardised reporting. Conclusion Critical care patients with COVID-19 were disproportionately non-white, from more deprived areas and more likely to be male and obese. Conventional severity scoring appeared not to adequately reflect their acute severity, with the distribution across PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio categories indicating acutely severe respiratory disease. Critical care patients with COVID-19 experience high mortality and place a great burden on critical care services.

Quiz Ref ID Among patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), a meta-analysis of outcomes for survivors, during the first 6 months after ICU discharge, indicated a pooled prevalence for clinically important posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms of 25%.¹ Acute stress while in the ICU^2,3 and early memories of frightening ICU experiences (eg, hallucinations, paranoid delusions, and nightmares)¹ have been identified as independent risk factors for longer-term psychological morbidity, including PTSD symptom severity. Evidence suggests that addressing these risk factors early, commencing while in the ICU, might prevent longer-term consequences⁴ and that addressing such factors after discharge may be too late.⁵ Research on ICU patients with trauma indicated that fewer experienced PTSD symptoms if they were seen by clinical psychologists while in the ICU.⁶

The present study was designed to (1) establish current sedation practice in UK critical care to inform evidence synthesis and potential future primary research and (2) to compare practice reported via a survey with actual practice assessed in a point prevalence study (PPS). UK adult general critical care units were invited to participate in a survey of current sedation practice, and a representative sample of units was invited to participate in a PPS of sedation practice at the patient level. Survey responses were compared with PPS data where both were available. Survey responses were received from 214 (91 %) of 235 eligible critical care units. Of these respondents, 57 % reported having a written sedation protocol, 94 % having a policy of daily sedation holds and 94 % using a sedation scale to assess depth of sedation. In the PPS, across units reporting a policy of daily sedation holds, a median of 50 % (IQR 33–75 %) of sedated patients were considered for a sedation hold. A median of 88 % (IQR 63–100 %) of patients were assessed using the same sedation scale as reported in the survey. Both the survey and the PPS indicated propofol as the preferred sedative and alfentanil, fentanyl and morphine as the preferred analgesics. In most of the PPS units, all patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice sedative (median across units 100 %, IQR 64–100 %), and a median of 80 % (IQR 67–100 %) of patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice analgesic. Most units (83 %) reported in the survey that sedatives are usually administered in combination with analgesics. Across units that participated in the PPS, 69 % of patients had received a combination of agents – most frequently propofol combined with either alfentanil or fentanyl. Clinical practice reported in the national survey did not accurately reflect actual clinical practice at the patient level observed in the PPS. Employing a mixed methods approach provided a more complete picture of sedation practice in terms of breadth and depth of information.

Objective To assess family satisfaction with intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK using the Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit 24-item (FS-ICU-24) questionnaire, and to investigate how characteristics of patients and their family members impact on family satisfaction. Design Prospective cohort study nested within a national clinical audit database. Setting Stratified, random sample of 20 adult general ICUs participating in the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme. Participants Family members of patients staying at least 24 hours in ICU were recruited between May 2013 and June 2014. Interventions Consenting family members were sent a postal questionnaire 3 weeks after the patient died or was discharged from ICU. Up to four family members were recruited per patient. Main outcome measures Family satisfaction was measured using the FS-ICU-24 questionnaire. Main results A total of 12 346 family members of 6380 patients were recruited and 7173 (58%) family members of 4615 patients returned a completed questionnaire. Overall and domain-specific family satisfaction scores were high (mean overall family satisfaction 80, satisfaction with care 83, satisfaction with information 76 and satisfaction with decision-making 73 out of 100) but varied significantly across adult general ICUs studied and by whether the patient survived ICU. For family members of ICU survivors, characteristics of both the family member (age, ethnicity, relationship to patient (next-of-kin and/or lived with patient) and visit frequency) and the patient (acute severity of illness and receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation) were significant determinants of family satisfaction, whereas, for family members of ICU non-survivors, only patient characteristics (age, acute severity of illness and duration of stay) were significant. Conclusions Overall family satisfaction in UK adult general ICUs was high but varied significantly. Adjustment for differences in family member/patient characteristics is important to avoid falsely identifying ICUs as statistical outliers. Trial registration number ISRCTN47363549

Pharmacogenomics could optimize antipsychotic treatment by preventing adverse drug reactions, improving treatment efficacy or relieving the cost burden on the healthcare system. Here we conducted a systematic review to investigate whether pharmacogenetic testing in individuals undergoing antipsychotic treatment influences clinical or economic outcomes. On 12 January 2024, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Centrale Register of Controlled Trials. The results were summarized using a narrative approach and summary tables. In total, 13 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The current evidence base is either in favor of pharmacogenetics-guided prescribing or showed no difference between pharmacogenetics and treatment as usual for clinical and economic outcomes. In the future, we require randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample sizes that provide recommendations for patients who take antipsychotics based on a broad, multigene panel, with consistent and comparable clinical outcomes.

Objectives Adverse psychological outcomes, following stressful experiences in critical care, affect up to 50% of patients. We aimed to develop and test the feasibility of a psychological intervention to reduce acute stress and prevent future morbidity. Design A mixed-methods intervention development study, using two stages of the UK Medical Research Council framework for developing and testing complex interventions. Stage one (development) involved identifying an evidence base for the intervention, developing a theoretical understanding of likely processes of change and modelling change processes and outcomes. Stage two comprised two linked feasibility studies. Setting Four UK general adult critical care units. Participants Stage one: former and current patients, and psychology, nursing and education experts. Stage two: current patients and staff. Outcomes Feasibility and acceptability to staff and patients of content and delivery of a psychological intervention, assessed using quantitative and qualitative data. Estimated recruitment and retention rates for a clinical trial. Results Building on prior work, we standardised the preventative, nurse-led Provision Of Psychological support to People in Intensive Care (POPPI) intervention. We devised courses and materials to train staff to create a therapeutic environment, to identify patients with acute stress and to deliver three stress support sessions and a relaxation and recovery programme to them. 127 awake, orientated patients took part in an intervention feasibility study in two hospitals. Patient and staff data indicated the complex intervention was feasible and acceptable. Feedback was used to refine the intervention. 86 different patients entered a separate trial procedures study in two other hospitals, of which 66 (80% of surviving patients) completed questionnaires on post-traumatic stress, depression and health 5 months after recruitment. Conclusion The ‘POPPI’ psychological intervention to reduce acute patient stress in critical care and prevent future psychological morbidity was feasible and acceptable. It was refined for evaluation in a cluster randomised clinical trial. Trial registration number ISRCTN61088114; Results.