Post-intensive care unit clinics: models and implementation - a systematic review

Critical Care volume 29, Article number: 421 (2025) Published: 06 October 2025

Background

Advances in critical care have shifted the focus from survival alone to addressing Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS), which includes persistent physical, cognitive, and psychological challenges after discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). While post-ICU clinics have been established in high-income countries (HICs), their adoption in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains limited, with structured follow-up care still under development.

Objective

To systematically review models of post-ICU clinics, examine barriers and facilitators to their implementation, and explore their potential applicability in LMICs.

Methods

This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024536147) and conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and CINAHL was completed on April 24, 2024. Studies published after 2000 describing adult post-ICU clinic models addressing PICS were included. Nineteen studies—comprising randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and quasi-experimental designs—met inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Thematic synthesis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Three primary models emerged: (1) hospital-based physical interviews (2), hybrid models incorporating both in-person and telehealth consultations, and (3) fully remote models using telehealth or home visits. Telehealth/home-visit models reported the highest mean attendance (88.7%), followed by hybrid (59%) and physical interview models (51.9%). Common barriers included resource constraints, transportation difficulties, limited awareness, inadequate insurance coverage, and poor interdisciplinary coordination. Facilitators included flexible scheduling, early stakeholder engagement, multidisciplinary team involvement, and use of telehealth technologies. While hybrid models appeared promising for LMICs due to their balance of accessibility and comprehensiveness, the evidence for clinical outcome benefit remains inconclusive, and questions about cost-effectiveness and sustainability persist.

Conclusion

Hybrid post-ICU clinic models may offer a feasible pathway for improving follow-up care in LMICs, especially when tailored to local constraints. However, their implementation must consider significant barriers, particularly related to funding and infrastructure, and be guided by emerging but still limited evidence on long-term patient outcomes. These findings aim to inform cautious, context-specific development of post-ICU care strategies in resource-limited settings.