Abstract: Since 1995 we have provided a bereavement follow-up service but the benefits of this to clinical care have not previously been reported . We reviewed the 1995 results, documentation methods, system design, discussed with reviewers their data collection, interview process and its effect on them and their practice. Next-of-kin of only 99/151 patients ( M87 age 14-88) were contacted 16-149 median 34 days after the death. Sleep disturbance (55/99) were the most common problems. We now give next-of- kin literature including a pamphlet which introduces our service and discusses these problems. Most next-of-kin (77/99) commented favorably on DCCM care, but 16/99 identified inadequate facilities and communication problems as service deficiencies. We have improved facilities (paint, furniture, telephone, drinks machine). We now notify patients general practitioners of every death and bring families back for meetings with staff when necessary. We changed systems of case identification and recording of next-of-kin information. Nurse interviewers (8) identified their needs for improved telephone skills, education about grief and research, debriefing after calls and their need for acknowledgement of participation in this service. Study days now address these issues. Interviewers difficulties with interview content have lead to changes. They suggested peer review of data forms to improve completeness which now occurs. Some found the interview process personally disturbing, but all reported positive changes in their practice with bereaved families.Within two years a bereavement service has led to improvements in facilities, communication, and staff expertise, it is now part of our holistic care

Abstract: The extent of early remediable morbidity after critical illness is unclear. We began a follow-up service to determine outcomes, facilitate rehabilitation and remedy service deficiencies. A critical care nurse identified hospital survivors (DCCM and hospital databases), completed a structured telephone interview with the patient and intervened according to predetermined guidelines. Of 261 admission 1/1/95 29/3/95 50 died in hospital (39in DCCM). Of 211 hospital survivors (M115, age 15-84 median40) 31 could not be contacted, one died at home and 179 contacts were made 21- 120 (median 51) days after DCCM. One refused interview, 178 interviews took 8-60, (median 15) minutes. Only 68/178 had resumed normal activities and 26/78 workers had returned to work. Seventy patients had contacted general practitioners because of critical illness sequelae. One hundred patients gad 191 problems (including unhealed wounds29, pain 28, impaired mobility26, neurological deficit 178, infection 10 weight loss 9, tiredness 6 depression 5, sleep disturbance 3, others 57). Sixty-five described DCCM staff as helpful, 37 had complaints (hallucinations 6, staff behaviour5, restraints5 sedation/analgesia inadequate5 or excessive 2, poor communication3, fear3, noise 2 other 4) and 5 raised serious non-DCCM issues. Forty-four patients were called again 6-84, median 42 days later when 69/112 health problems had resolved but 29/44 patients had not resumed normal activity. Four attended a clinic and were referred to other services. A follow-up service is well received. Morbidity is common but improves within three months after critical care. We are addressing service issues

Abstract: We are about to implement a nurse-based critical care follow-up service and used a follow-up study of tracheostomy to determine the feasibility of such a service. Nine to 27 months median 14 after intensive care admission we attempted to follow-up 116 of our most severely ill survivors. Twenty six could not be found, 11 declined follow-up. A questionnaire, interview and limited examination were used to determine health status. Ten patients unable to come to a clinic were seen at home. Interview time varied between patients but 79 patients took 100 nurse-hours. Ninety percent of patients co-operated with respiratory function testing. Pulse oximetry identified one with severe chronic respiratory failure. In this highly selected group of patients with on going problems (perceived poor health, dependency, disability, changes in appearance, deterioration in personal relationships, poor sleep, pain, altered diet, unaddressed chronic health problems, poor access to health services, and continuing prescription medication) were common, and addressed to some extent by appropriate referral. Approximately 20% of patients reported improvement in their health and personal relationships after critical illness and half of the smokers had given up. Factors contributing to follow-up difficulty included distance, delay in initial contact, change of address (255 of this group), disability and poverty. A nurse-run critical care follow-up clinic is feasible, time consuming but productive. A register of current addresses and phone numbers is recommended. The optimal time for follow-up will vary with patients conditions but early follow-up with protocol- based lines of referral is recommended to reduce persistent health problems

Abstract: In 1995 we conducted a retrospective audit on a prospectively collated database to find out which intensive care patients missed out on psychiatric care after self poisoning. Our results showed that 57 patients in 1995 may not have received psychiatric follow-up assessment. Department of Critical Care Medicine (DCCM) follow-up was also less successful for this particular group. It was recommended that on admission to intensive care, all self poisoning patients would be referred to the Liaison Psychiatry Service (LPS).In 1996 we reviewed the databases of DCCM and LPS to determine if the quality of psychiatric follow-up had improved after the initial 1995 audit. In 1996 124 patients had 149 admissions (85F, age range 14.6-85.3, median 35, median GCS 9, 99 ventilated, 3 deaths). Thirteen patients had 25 admissions within 6 months of their index admission , 7/13 had a major psychiatric disorder. Mixed poisoning remained common. Forty-five admissions took cyclic antidepressants, 21 sedatives, 52 other medications, 25 ethanol (median 43 mmol/l ), 30 carbon monoxide and 5 took various non-prescription poisons.Thirteen went home, 32 to other hospitals, 4 to psychiatric hospitals and 97 were transferred to wards within Auckland Hospital. Psychiatric follow-up assessment was successful in 96/97 patients prior to discharge from Auckland Hospital. Those discharged to other hospitals or home were referred and followed up by LPS teams or other Mental Health Services.DCCM follow-up 4-6 weeks post discharge was more successful for 1996 with 120/146 contacted of which 33/120 were receiving ongoing psychiatric care.