Co-development of a Transitions in Care Bundle for Patient Transitions from the Intensive Care Unit: a Mixed-methods Analysis of a Stakeholder Consensus Meeting
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing transitions in care are at increased risk of adverse events and gaps in medical care. We evaluated existing patient- and family-centered transitions in care tools and identified facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle in critically ill adults (i.e., a collection of evidence-based patient- and family-centred tools to improve outcomes during and after transitions from the intensive care unit [ICU] to hospital ward or community).
Methods: We conducted a concurrent mixed methods (quan + QUAL) study, including stakeholders with experience in ICU transitions in care (i.e., patient/family partners, researchers, decision-makers, providers, and other knowledge-users). First, participants scored existing transitions in care tools using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) framework. Transitions in care tools were discussed by stakeholders and either accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected if consensus was achieved (≥70% agreement). We summarized quantitative results using frequencies and medians. Second, we conducted a qualitative analysis of participant discussions using grounded theory principles to elicit factors influencing AGREE-II scores, and to identify barriers, facilitators, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle.
Results: Twenty-nine stakeholders attended. Of 18 transitions in care tools evaluated, seven (39%) tools were accepted with modifications, one (6%) tool was rejected, and consensus was not reached for ten (55%) tools. Qualitative analysis found that participants' AGREE-II rankings were influenced by: 1) language (e.g., inclusive, balance of jargon and lay language); 2) if the tool was comprehensive (i.e., could stand alone); 3) if the tool could be individualized for each patient; 4) impact to clinical workflow; and 5) how the tool was presented (e.g., brochure, video). Participants discussed implementation considerations for a patient- and family-centered transitions in care bundle: 1) delivery (e.g., tool format and timing); 2) continuity (e.g., follow-up after ICU discharge); and 3) continuous evaluation and improvement (e.g., frequency of tool use). Participants discussed existing facilitators (e.g., collaboration and co-design) and barriers (e.g., health system capacity) that would impact application of a transitions in care bundle.
Conclusions: Findings will inform future research to develop a transitions in care bundle for transitions from the ICU, co-designed with patients, families, providers, researchers, decision-makers, and knowledge-users.
Klinke M, Thorarinsson B, Sveinsson O Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2025; 25(1):21.
PMID: 40047971 PMC: 11885359. DOI: 10.1007/s11910-025-01409-7.
Identifying the Bundle/Care Development Process in Clinical Risk Management: A Systematic Review.
Sebastiani E, Scacchetti M, Cesare M, Maurici M, Loiudice M Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(22).
PMID: 39595440 PMC: 11593500. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12222242.
Bourne R, Jeffries M, Jennings J, Ashcroft D, Norman P BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):1476.
PMID: 39593104 PMC: 11600792. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11627-3.
Bourne R, Jeffries M, Meakin E, Norville R, Ashcroft D CHEST Crit Care. 2024; 2(2):100072.
PMID: 38911128 PMC: 11190841. DOI: 10.1016/j.chstcc.2024.100072.
Hammoud S, Alsabek L, Rogers L, McAuliffe E BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):532.
PMID: 38671476 PMC: 11046929. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11021-z.