Disease prevention & health promotion: what’s critical care got to do with it?
Review Article

Disease prevention & health promotion: what’s critical care got to do with it?

Carley Riley1,2, Andrea Maxwell2, Allison Parsons2, Erica Andrist2, Andrew F. Beck1,3,4

1Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 2Division of Critical Care, 3Division of General and Community Pediatrics, 4Division of Hospital Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Contributions: (I) Conception and design: C Riley, A Maxwell, AF Beck; (II) Administrative support: None; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: None; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: All authors; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: All authors; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

Correspondence to: Carley Riley, MD, MPP, MHS. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Avenue, MLC 2005, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA. Email: Carley.Riley@cchmc.org.

Abstract: Health systems are increasingly investing in efforts to prevent disease and promote health for populations. By and large, these prevention-related interventions have not been inclusive of critical care and the intensive care unit (ICU). However, we suggest that there is value—to patients, families, health systems, and society at large—in extending this continuum into the ICU setting and including the ICU in disease prevention and health promotion efforts. Including the ICU in this continuum allows the critical care perspective to inform (I) advocacy for prevention; (II) efforts to improve disparities in health and health care; (III) mitigation of the negative effects of critical illness and injury as well as ICU exposure; and (IV) promotion of health and well-being in the community. As disease prevention and health promotion rise as priorities within health systems, critical care can and should join, even help lead, the effort.

Keywords: Prevention; critical care; health disparities; life course theory; well-being


Submitted Aug 23, 2018. Accepted for publication Sep 20, 2018.

doi: 10.21037/tp.2018.09.13


Health systems are increasingly investing in efforts to prevent disease and promote health for populations (1-3). In doing so, leaders of health systems have come to understand that health care alone is not enough to prevent disease and produce health (4). These efforts have also fostered the understanding that there is a continuum from the community to the clinical setting, and disease prevention and health promotion interventions placed along this continuum are vital to the ultimate improvement of population health. The frontlines for such prevention efforts in the clinical setting have historically included the outpatient primary care clinic, the emergency department, and occasionally the general inpatient setting. By and large, these prevention-related interventions have not been inclusive of critical care and the intensive care unit (ICU). However, we suggest that there is value—to patients, families, health systems, and society at large—in extending this continuum into the ICU setting and including the ICU in disease prevention and health promotion efforts.

While critical care is not typically viewed as a natural stakeholder in prevention efforts, the ICU should no longer be a black box from a public health perspective. The epidemiology, experience, and outcomes of patients and families who enter into and emerge from the ICU should inform the disease prevention and health promotion efforts of their health systems. Including the ICU in this continuum allows the critical care perspective to inform (I) advocacy for prevention; (II) efforts to improve disparities in health and health care; (III) mitigation of the negative effects of critical illness and injury as well as ICU exposure; and (IV) promotion of health and well-being in the community.


Community to ICU: advocating for prevention

Though not typically viewed as population health stakeholders, pediatric intensivists have been effective prevention advocates for years, particularly for efforts related to trauma and emergency preparedness. Pediatric intensivists have informed and supported the passage of local, regional, and federal policy related to emergency response and disaster preparedness (5). They have also leveraged their expertise and experience to inform policies aimed at a reduction in the incidence of drowning, a decrease in the morbidity and mortality resulting from motor vehicle accidents, and the prevention of gun-related injury and death (6,7). More recently, pediatric intensivists have contributed to campaigns to decrease the incidence of vaccine-preventable illness and death (8), and to increase awareness and early recognition of sepsis (9). They have also joined other physicians and healthcare professionals to advocate on behalf of public health insurance programs (5). The critical care perspective has been vital to each of these efforts and has the potential to be utilized across many more contexts.


The ICU: improving disparities

As health systems seek a deeper understanding of health disparities, they must look to the ICU setting. Enumeration of disparities that reach the ICU would further motivate and contextualize intervention deployment, highlighting areas where disparity reduction in the health and health care of populations could be achieved. While disparities—or equity gaps—in health and health care have been studied in non-ICU populations for decades, equity gaps within the ICU have only recently been examined. Not surprisingly, similar to the general inpatient population, racial and socioeconomic disparities are present in the PICU population and show differential outcomes (10). For example, a recent study conducted in a population of 4,676 children from Tennessee found that African Americans were significantly more likely to be admitted to the pediatric ICU (PICU) than their non-Hispanic white peers, even after adjusting for co-morbidities [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.1; 95% CI: 1.7–2.7] (11). Moreover, children of color and children from families with lower socioeconomic status are often more ill on arrival to the ICU and are more likely to die prior to ICU discharge (12-14).

Disparities in PICU, as in the health system, are likely multi-factorial. Studies suggest that such disparities can result in part from a lack of access to high quality primary care and preventive services (11,15-17). Perhaps connected to this relative dearth of prevention, there is also evidence that racial and ethnic minority children and those from lower socioeconomic households have a higher prevalence of chronic disease (18-20). The effects of these gaps in access to care and disparities in both prevalence and control of illness are further exacerbated by the social determinants of health (SDH), defined by the World Health Organization as, “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age” (21). Specific SDH include a lack of access to healthy foods, lack of safe housing including exposure to mold and lead, and exposure to air pollution, among many other contextual factors (22). These SDH clearly also can relate back to the accessibility of quality care and, potentially, to the prevalence of environmentally-mediated disease.

It is essential that health systems also understand and intervene on equity gaps in therapies and outcomes for patients receiving care in the ICU. For example, a multi-site study of 5,749 PICU admissions showed a shorter length of stay (LOS) for uninsured children (0.86; 95% CI: 0.80–0.92) compared to publicly and privately insured children; notably, this disparity persisted even when analyses include adjustment for the increased probability that the uninsured children were likelier to die. The same study demonstrated a 4% decrease in resource use for African American children compared to Caucasian children, which approached but did not reach statistical significance (14,23,24). This area of great concern, however, has been understudied.

Factors that influence disparities, many of which are rooted in SDH, extend into the ICU. As such, a deeper understanding of these factors and targeted actions could prevent ICU-based disparities while simultaneously contributing to larger disease prevention efforts across the health system as a whole. Actions could target specific, potentially-movable outcomes or therapies. For instance, they could extend to mitigating the differences in how families are engaged in the care of their children (25-28). Literacy and language barriers as well as lack of culturally appropriate engagement with the patient and family can lead to miscommunication or misunderstanding, increasing feelings of mistrust (29,30). These issues are not unique to the ICU but may be even more important to manage given the high stakes of the environment—the severity of the disease and the added transition many children face as they go from one unit to another or from hospital-to-home with continued care needs. It naturally follows that a deeper consideration of the context in which transitions and these care needs occur will determine the extent to which morbidity persists.


ICU to community: preventing the negative effects of critical illness and injury

The field of critical care has been engaging more and more in the prevention and mitigation of the negative effects that ICU stays can have, and that can burden patients and their families as they return to the community to live, grow, work, and play. Over the last decade, intensivists have widened their focus from largely preventing mortality to also preventing, or at least minimizing, the morbidity that results from critical illnesses and injuries, and the resultant exposure to the ICU (31). As general pediatrics has advanced the concept of toxic stress (32) and adult medicine specialists have begun to examine “post-hospital syndrome” (an acquired, transient period of vulnerability to a range of adverse health events following an acute hospitalization) (33), adult and pediatric intensivists alike have begun studying “post-intensive care syndrome” (i.e., new or worsening impairment in physical, mental, or cognitive health after critical illness that persists beyond discharge from the acute care setting) (34). The field is beginning to recognize the long-term mental health effects of ICU stays for not only the patient but also the family, and develop efforts to prevent these effects (35-38). ICUs are increasingly promoting early mobility (39,40) and are taking a burgeoning focus on patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life and school performance (41,42). In these ways, critical care is now engaging in efforts to prevent morbidity along the latter part of the continuum, from ICU back into community. In this, the PICU is picking up outcomes that have long been the purview of primary care pediatrics, outcomes that are vital to upholding the broader definition of health and well-being that is being increasingly agreed upon, that of a “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (43).


Beyond prevention to promotion

The role that critical care plays in preventing morbidity and mortality is vital. Including critical care in broader prevention efforts, health systems may better identify and leverage opportunities for the prevention of illness and injury as well as the prevention of secondary harm due to critical care use. Beyond prevention, however, PICUs can also be places to promote child, adolescent, and family health and well-being. Patients and families encounter critical care at highly vulnerable, stressful times. For those who require critical care, might health systems and ICUs manage the experience in ways that not only minimize disease and harm but also foster health and well-being?

Life course theory has demonstrated how many different health trajectories are possible for any one person (44). As a child grows and develops, she encounters negative and positive factors that influence her trajectory towards suffering or thriving throughout her childhood and into her adulthood. Negative factors may include poverty, lack of health services, and toxic stress while positive factors may include parent emotional health, being read to, and appropriate discipline (44). Life course theory demonstrates how our systems and policies may optimize health and well-being, by not only minimizing negative, health-harming factors but also fostering positive, health-promoting factors. To that end, the ICU experience could be transformed so that patients and families not only suffer less mortality and morbidity but also experience post-traumatic growth (i.e., positive change resulting from the struggle with trauma) (45).

By broadening their approach to prevention and promotion, and including critical care in the efforts, health systems could foster health and well-being through positive health practices along the care continuum. In times of crisis, critical care could systematically encourage strengths and assets, such as greater resilience, deeper sense of meaning and purpose, stronger interpersonal connections, and greater sense of belonging. Potential interventions could include encouraging strength-based, culturally appropriate, trauma-informed care; fostering mindfulness practices for patients, families, and providers; embedding strength- or asset-based frame into communications and interactions with parents and among team members; and enhancing valuable connections among patients and providers across the care continuum including the community; among many others.

As disease prevention and health promotion rise as priorities within health systems, critical care can and should join, even help lead, the effort.


Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge and thank Larissa Loufman, MPH, RD, LD, CLC (Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center) for her support in the production of this paper.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

  1. Permanente K. Our work. 2018. Available online: https://share.kaiserpermanente.org/community-health/our-work/
  2. Healthcare I. Community health: Working to improve the health of underserved communities. 2018. Available online: https://intermountainhealthcare.org/about/who-we-are/community-benefit/
  3. Center CCsHM. About Cincinnati Children's: Community and population health. 2018. Available online: https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/about/community/community-health
  4. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:759-69. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Representatives CoWaMUSHo. Roundtable on critical care policy. 2011, February 10. Available online: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/roundtable-on-critical-care-policy/
  6. Riley CL, Sarani B, Sullivan JA, et al. Critical Violent Injury in the United States: A Review and Call to Action. Crit Care Med 2015;43:2460-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Meyer RJ, Theodorou AA, Berg RA. Childhood drowning. Pediatr Rev 2006;27:163-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Ryan S. Charleston infant vaccinations on the rise. 2018. Available online: http://www.live5news.com/story/37299071/charleston-infant-vaccinations-on-the-rise/
  9. Global Sepsis Alliance. Accessed August 22, 2018. Available online: https://www.global-sepsis-alliance.org/
  10. Chaves DM, Thornton JD. Health Disparities in Critical Illness. In: Gerald L, Berry C. editors. Health Disparities in Respiratory Medicine. Respiratory Medicine. Humana Press, Cham, 2016:265-93.
  11. Turner D, Simpson P, Li SH, et al. Racial disparities in pediatric intensive care unit admissions. South Med J 2011;104:640-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Epstein D, Reibel M, Unger JB, et al. The effect of neighborhood and individual characteristics on pediatric critical illness. J Community Health 2014;39:753-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Hakmeh W, Barker J, Szpunar SM, et al. Effect of race and insurance on outcome of pediatric trauma. Acad Emerg Med 2010;17:809-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Lopez AM, Tilford JM, Anand KJ, et al. Variation in pediatric intensive care therapies and outcomes by race, gender, and insurance status. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2006;7:2-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Newacheck PW, Hung YY, Wright KK. Racial and ethnic disparities in access to care for children with special health care needs. Ambul Pediatr 2002;2:247-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Newacheck PW, Inkelas M, Kim SE. Health services use and health care expenditures for children with disabilities. Pediatrics 2004;114:79-85. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Newacheck PW, Stein RE, Bauman L, et al. Disparities in the prevalence of disability between black and white children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157:244-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Barnato AE, Alexander SL, Linde-Zwirble WT, et al. Racial variation in the incidence, care, and outcomes of severe sepsis: analysis of population, patient, and hospital characteristics. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;177:279-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Erickson SE, Shlipak MG, Martin GS, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in mortality from acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2009;37:1-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Mayr FB, Yende S, Linde-Zwirble WT, et al. Infection rate and acute organ dysfunction risk as explanations for racial differences in severe sepsis. JAMA 2010;303:2495-503. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. World Health Organization. Gender, equity and human rights: Social determinants of health. 2018. Available online: http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/sdh-definition/en/
  22. Promotion OoDPaH. Healthy people 2020: Social determinants of health. 2018, August 21. Available online: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health
  23. Braveman PA, Egerter S, Bennett T, et al. Differences in hospital resource allocation among sick newborns according to insurance coverage. JAMA 1991;266:3300-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Williams JF, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, et al. African-American and white patients admitted to the intensive care unit: is there a difference in therapy and outcome? Crit Care Med 1995;23:626-36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Derose KP, Baker DW. Limited English proficiency and Latinos' use of physician services. Med Care Res Rev 2000;57:76-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. DuBard CA, Gizlice Z. Language spoken and differences in health status, access to care, and receipt of preventive services among US Hispanics. Am J Public Health 2008;98:2021-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Flores G. Language barriers to health care in the United States. N Engl J Med 2006;355:229-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Peterson PN, Shetterly SM, Clarke CL, et al. Health literacy and outcomes among patients with heart failure. JAMA 2011;305:1695-701. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Pham K, Thornton JD, Engelberg RA, et al. Alterations during medical interpretation of ICU family conferences that interfere with or enhance communication. Chest 2008;134:109-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  30. Thornton JD, Pham K, Engelberg RA, et al. Families with limited English proficiency receive less information and support in interpreted intensive care unit family conferences. Crit Care Med 2009;37:89-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  31. Aspesberro F, Riley C, Kitagawa M, et al. Improving Long-term Outcomes for Pediatric Patients. Critical Connections. 2015. Available online: https://ssc.sccm.org/Communications/Critical-Connections/Archives/Pages/Improving-Long-Term-Outcomes-for-Pediatric-Patients.aspx
  32. Franke HA. Toxic Stress: Effects, Prevention and Treatment. Children (Basel) 2014;1:390-402. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  33. Krumholz HM. Post-hospital syndrome--an acquired, transient condition of generalized risk. N Engl J Med 2013;368:100-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  34. Rawal G, Yadav S, Kumar R. Post-intensive Care Syndrome: an Overview. J Transl Int Med 2017;5:90-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  35. Balas MC, Vasilevskis EE, Olsen KM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle. Crit Care Med 2014;42:1024-36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  36. Kress JP. Sedation and mobility: changing the paradigm. Crit Care Clin 2013;29:67-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  37. Morandi A, Brummel NE, Ely EW. Sedation, delirium and mechanical ventilation: the 'ABCDE' approach. Curr Opin Crit Care 2011;17:43-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  38. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;373:1874-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  39. Cameron S, Ball I, Cepinskas G, et al. Early mobilization in the critical care unit: A review of adult and pediatric literature. J Crit Care 2015;30:664-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  40. Wieczorek B, Burke C, Al-Harbi A, et al. Early mobilization in the pediatric intensive care unit: a systematic review. J Pediatr Intensive Care 2015;2015:129-70. [PubMed]
  41. Aspesberro F, Mangione-Smith R, Zimmerman JJ. Health-related quality of life following pediatric critical illness. Intensive Care Med 2015;41:1235-46. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  42. Pinto NP, Rhinesmith EW, Kim TY, et al. Long-Term Function After Pediatric Critical Illness: Results From the Survivor Outcomes Study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017;18:e122-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  43. World Health Organization. About WHO: Constitution of WHO principles. 2018. Available online: http://www.who.int/about/mission/en/
  44. Halfon N, Larson K, Lu M, et al. Lifecourse health development: past, present and future. Matern Child Health J 2014;18:344-65. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  45. Kilmer RP, Gil-Rivas V, Tedeschi RG, et al. Use of the revised Posttraumatic Growth Inventory for Children. J Trauma Stress 2009;22:248-53. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Riley C, Maxwell A, Parsons A, Andrist E, Beck AF. Disease prevention & health promotion: what’s critical care got to do with it? Transl Pediatr 2018;7(4):262-266. doi: 10.21037/tp.2018.09.13