Utility of an ICU peer support group for ICU survivors and caregivers post-discharge from a quaternary hospital (ICU Peer Support Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to explore ICU survivors' and caregivers' (i.e., consumers') perspectives on the utility of an ICU peer support groups (PSG). A qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) of former patients (i.e., Survivors) and caregivers (i.e., adult mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a quaternary referral centre in Adelaide, South Australia. Purposive sampling was conducted to identify participants. The semi-structured guide was utilised to facilitate discussion with group members. Four focus group discussions were conducted with former ICU patients (i.e., survivors) and caregivers. Thematic analysis identified themes and subthemes that informed us about the utility of the ICU peer support group and identified system-level areas for improvement. ICU survivors and their caregivers were recruited via the hospital-run ICU peer support group. Thirteen survivors (five females, mean age 56, and nine caregivers (seven females, mean age 39 (SD 33.6)) consented to participate in the focus group discussions. The study identified six themes relevant to the utility of the peer support group: (1) Dealing with the impact of ICU, (2) Information on peer support groups and post-intensive care syndrome whilst in ICU, (3) Information provided during peer support group meetings (4) Leadership (5) Managing challenging situations and expectations of caregivers and (6) Opportunities for organisational improvement. ICU survivors and their caregivers value the ICU peer support model of care and can identify unit and system-level improvement opportunities to meet consumers' unmet needs. ICU survivors and their caregivers' perspectives and viewpoints regarding this ICU peer support group identifies themes on the utility of peer support and survivorship. This is beneficial in further defining a peer support program and offering a platform for structuring and operationalising ICUs by partnering with consumers. • This is the first study to provide insights into the consumer perspectives and viewpoints concerning ICU peer support groups in Australia. • The study used a qualitative methodological framework, which allowed participants to provide important insights into systems, processes, outcomes, enabling factors, and barriers. • Our study provides a model of care for ICUs in constructing a peer support group with consumer co-design. • Our study will also be of interest to policymakers and clinician administrators who are involved in consumer engagement initiatives. • Our study highlights the importance of patient education and counselling in the domains of post-intensive care syndrome and how to pivot the peer support group meetings to achieve those goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".