Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Aug 15.
Published before final editing as: Am J Crit Care. 2021 Feb 15:e1–e5. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2021675

Establishing a Peer Support Program for Survivors of COVID-19: A Report from the Critical and Acute Illness Recovery Organization

Aluko A Hope 1, Andrea (Annie) Johnson 2, Joanne McPeake 3,4, Hali Felt 5, Carla M Sevin 6, Mark E Mikkelsen 7, Theodore J Iwashyna 8,9, Caroline Lassen-Greene 10, Kimberley J Haines 11,12, Sachin Agarwal 13, Rita N Bakhru 14, Leanne M Boehm 15, Brad W Butcher 16, Kelly Drumright 17, Tammy L Eaton 18, Elizabeth Hibbert 19, Karen Sara Hoehn 20, David Hornstein 21, Heather Imperato-Shedden 22, James Jackson 23, Janet A Kloos 24, Anna Lewis 25, Joel Meyer 26, Ashley Montgomery-Yates 27, Veronica Rojas 28, Christa Schorr 29, Dorothy Wade 30, Cydni Williams 31
PMCID: PMC8364567  NIHMSID: NIHMS1700984  PMID: 33566061

Estimates from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggest that about 20% of adults with COVID-19 are hospitalized, and in approximately 20% of those, severe acute respiratory failure develops that requires life-support treatments such as invasive mechanical ventilation.1,2 Results of research from before the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that most of these adults with critical illness will survive to hospital discharge.3,4 Survival, for many, will come with a legacy of new or worsening deficits in physical,5 mental,6,7 or cognitive health in the months to years after hospital discharge.8,9 Post–intensive care syndrome has become the agreed upon term for these new or worsening health problems that can persist beyond an acute hospitalization for serious illness.8

The psychosocial outcomes in survivors of critical illness include high rates of clinically significant anxiety,10 depression,11 and posttraumatic stress symptoms.12 Related, many survivors are unable to return to work13 and thereby suffer financial consequences that further the distress of survivors and their loved ones14; income loss by both the survivor and family members who curtail work to serve as caregivers may contribute further to their collective psychological distress.

The multiple challenges of providing recovery focused care in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the pandemic, along with the stigma and social isolation unique to COVID-19 survivors, may contribute to a high level of psychological distress in COVID-19 survivors.15 Urgent innovation is needed to mitigate psychosocial distress among COVID-19 survivors. In this review, we leverage the growing expertise within the Critical and Acute Illness Recovery Organization (CAIRO), an international multidisciplinary organization committed to improving the quality of life of patients and families after critical illness, to (1) define peer support and provide a vision for its potential role in COVID-19 recovery and (2) summarize key strategies for developing and sustaining a peer support program during the pandemic.

Defining Peer Support and Its Role in Recovery from COVID-19

Peer support is a system of giving and receiving help in relationship with others who share similar experiences. Table 1 summarizes key principles of peer support, which include acceptance, respect with dignity,16 reciprocity,1719 mutual responsibility, and trust/integrity. Within the health care context, peer support or peer-based support programs are complex interventions studied as an approach to (1) improve patient outcomes after transitional stressors (eg, pregnancy, postpartum depression, bereavement), (2) improve patients’ and families’ adjustment to chronic diseases (eg, cancer, drug addiction, diabetes), and (3) promote healthful living or disease prevention (eg, use of peers to prevent sexually transmitted diseases or to promote cancer-screening behaviors).20

Table 1.

Principles of peer support

Principle Description
Acceptance Aware of own biases and privilege
Honest, direct, and respectful
Open to other views
Respect with dignity16 Value differences and unique abilities
Keep confidences
Respect people’s right to make their own decisions, even “wrong” ones
Reciprocity17,18 The importance of give and take
Reclaiming “help” as a natural process between 2 or more people
Social exchange
Mutual responsibility Each person takes responsibility for their actions
Negotiation of “responsibility”
Shared power–no hierarchy
Trust/integrity Believing in one another
Holding hope for each other
Building relationships that focus on one another’s well-being
Confidentiality

Since we suggested peer support as a novel strategy to mitigate psychological distress after critical illness,21 many health systems have started to integrate various models of peer support22 into their ICU recovery treatment as a way to promote resilience, provide social and emotional support, and ensure informational exchange between critical illness survivors. The 6 models of peer support that have been described include community based, psychologist led outpatient, within ICU, within ICU follow-up clinics, online, and peer mentor models.22

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, few of the health systems that had started peer support programs for ICU survivors had transitioned to a true peer-led model. As health systems respond to the moral call to develop robust infrastructure to improve the recovery and social integration of adult COVID-19 survivors, the pandemic may catalyze the transition and growth of peer-led models for 2 reasons. First, a unifying, singular diagnosis may serve to overcome a barrier to the peer-led model, which is the heterogeneity of experiences that lead to critical illness. Although survivors who required invasive mechanical ventilation have much in common, the stories of patients who arrived in that state may differ dramatically. For example, a car accident, a pneumonia, and a progressive chronic condition can each lead to the common pathway of requiring life support. Although similarities abound, including the frequency of long-term impairments and recovery challenges, an anchoring diagnosis is often lacking. Second, the high number of health care workers affected by COVID-19 may motivate a quicker transition to a peer-led model of support.

Despite the limited evidence of the effectiveness of peer support interventions in ICU survivors,23 recent qualitative analyses elucidate 3 potential mechanisms by which peer support programs could be beneficial to COVID-19 survivors. First, by providing a forum for survivors to share their experiences, peer support may improve psychological morbidity, increase motivation for rehabilitation therapy, and reduce social isolation. Second, by providing a means for patients to better understand their acute illness experience, peer support may provide survivors with internal and external validation of recovery progress, may help provide tools to improve patients’ understanding of the relevant parts of the health care system, and may help manage expectations for recovery. Third, by providing the structure for survivors to give benefits to another person as they receive benefit (reciprocity), peer support may facilitate resilience, trust, and a sense of purpose.24

Considerations for Starting and Sustaining a Peer Support Program

Using qualitative analysis, researchers from our group have identified barriers and enablers to starting peer support programs.25 In Table 2, we summarize 6 key strategies for developing and sustaining a peer support program during the pandemic. The preparation steps include setting goals and objectives for the peer support program, assembling a multidisciplinary team of innovators, and deciding which online platform to use for the meeting. Although ideally the innovation team would include a survivor of COVID-19 or another critical illness, most of the peer support programs currently being sustained for ICU survivors are facilitated by behavioral health experts, and it may take several years to identify a suitable peer leader. Each platform for online meetings has advantages and disadvantages; teams should be aware of their local institutional policies regarding best practices for meeting online via these platforms. Although phone conferences are an option, we believe video platforms are the best choice to enhance the social connection of the group.26 Other online communities allow survivors to interact with one another asynchronously, meaning that participants can interact on their own timeline, thereby allowing group members from across multiple time zones to connect with one another. One pervasive challenge remains for peer support online programs during COVID-19: how to be more intentional about including participants across all racial/ethnic backgrounds and all physical and cognitive abilities.

Table 2.

Six strategies for developing and sustaining a peer support program during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

Strategy Action
Preparation Form an innovation team
Consider a multidisciplinary team with a diverse set of skills and motivation for involvement
Assess the needs of the population
Set goals and objectives for the peer support
Get familiar with online platforms
Recruitment Start early
Use a variety of strategies
Use informational brochures for patients, families, and other clinicians
Facilitation Demonstrate active listening and empathic communication skills
Negotiate boundaries and ground rules
Manage side conversations and interruptions
Moderate asynchronous communities to ensure all members feel connected and heard
Trauma-informed approach Know the developmental, behavioral, cognitive, social, and physical effects of trauma
Planning logistics Size of the group
Duration of the meeting
Frequency of the meeting
Planning for the in-between Debriefing
Regular reflection

Despite the high volume of COVID-19 survivors, the recruitment of suitable participants for a peer support program requires intention and care. Starting the recruitment during the hospitalization period is feasible by providing information about critical illness recovery to patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Where active, ICU follow-up clinics can also serve to identify patients and family members who may benefit from engaging in peer support.

Choosing facilitators who are skilled and motivated to work with COVID-19 survivors will be instrumental for the success of the peer support program. Effective facilitators engage the group members; prioritize safety, respect, and privacy; and keep the conversation focused and fluid. Facilitators foster the development of empathic, respectful, and collaborative relationships between the participants. On a video platform, it may be crucial that facilitators be visible at all times during the meeting in order to maintain a strong collaborative relationship during these group interactions.26 Cofacilitation may help improve the effectiveness and safety of the peer support by addressing the challenge of effectively responding to intense emotions through online platforms.

Given the high prevalence of traumatic experiences in ICU survivors and their families, facilitators should use a trauma-informed approach to facilitation, which acknowledges that all types of trauma may adversely affect how survivors interact and cope.27 (See Table 3 for key principles of trauma-informed peer support.) Whether peer support programs can be useful in facilitating posttraumatic growth, defined as a positive psychological change that can come from processing a trauma, is a question that could be investigated in future research studies.28 For facilitators of an asynchronous online community, ensuring that group members feel heard and acknowledged may take extra effort. Unlike in-person and video groups, where feedback and comments are in real time, groups whose members connect asynchronously run the risk of having members feel alone or unheard if responses to their participation are not timely.29

Table 3.

Principles of trauma-informed peer support

Culturally responsive
Informed about the developmental, behavioral, social, and physical effects of trauma
Maximizes psychological safety–takes particular care to create a welcoming environment, minimizes revictimization
Seeks to understand the meaning people make of their experiences; focuses on understanding “What happened to you?”
Collaborative and responsive
Empowered, enables voice and choice (aims to maximize autonomy, choice, trustworthiness, and the elimination of coercion)

Negotiating ground rules at the beginning of the online meeting is particularly important. These rules ensure that everyone participating adheres to shared general concepts that preserve the privacy and safety of all participants. Particularly when using online platforms, participants must be able to ensure that their privacy is upheld, that no one who was not specifically invited to the group can overhear or observe the group’s activity.

After each meeting, cofacilitators should debrief and reflect on key aspects of the group encounter. As peer support is a still in an early phase of innovation, an important role for any peer support program is to serve as a bridge between the world of the COVID-19 survivor and the acute care setting of the hospital: certain themes that emerge from survivors can facilitate intra-ICU and in-hospital care improvements for future COVID-19 patients.30 Peer support programs can create new roles for COVID-19 survivors in the hospital setting and help improve the morale of the acute care staff.30 Program leaders should also have a plan to systematically collect quantitative or qualitative feedback from the participants and be willing to disseminate information about both their successes and their failures.31,32

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic will require health systems to test interventions to improve the recovery and social integration of adult survivors of COVID-19. Peer support is a complex intervention that allows COVID-19 survivors to give and receive practical and emotional support in relationship with other survivors of acute illness. The growing expertise within CAIRO can be leveraged by stakeholders interested in starting and sustaining a peer support program for COVID-19 survivors.

Acknowledgements

Aluko A. Hope and Andrea Johnson served as co-chairs of the CAIRO Peer Support Collaborative, served as co–first authors, and contributed equally to the work. We would like to acknowledge the administrative support of Max Monahan and the help in facilitating the preparation of this work from CAIRO administrative support staff.

Footnotes

Financial Disclosures

None reported.

Contributor Information

Aluko A. Hope, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York.

Andrea (Annie) Johnson, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Joanne McPeake, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Scotland, UK; School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Hali Felt, Author and critical care survivor who is working on her second book, titled Extracorporeal: A Memory of Science and Recovery. She lives in Sacramento, California.

Carla M. Sevin, Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, US.

Mark E. Mikkelsen, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, US.

Theodore J Iwashyna, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, US; Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, US.

Caroline Lassen-Greene, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Kimberley J. Haines, Department of Physiotherapy, Western Health, Sunshine Hospital; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Sachin Agarwal, Department of Neurology (Neurocritical Care), Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.

Rita N. Bakhru, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Leanne M. Boehm, School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, US.

Brad W. Butcher, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Pennsylvania.

Kelly Drumright, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System VA Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Tammy L. Eaton, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, and a founder of the Critical Illness Recovery Center at UPMC Mercy.

Elizabeth Hibbert, Department of Physiotherapy, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia.

Karen Sara Hoehn, University of Chicago, Illinois.

David Hornstein, McGill University Health Centre, Program of Critical Care and Internal Medicine, Montreal, Qu.bec, Canada.

Heather Imperato-Shedden, Morristown Medical Center, Morristown, New Jersey.

James Jackson, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Janet A. Kloos, Department of Acute and Critical Care Nursing, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Ohio.

Anna Lewis, UPMC Mercy Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Joel Meyer, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Ashley Montgomery-Yates, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Veronica Rojas, Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Cl.nico Universidad de Chile, Santiago.

Christa Schorr, Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University Health Care in New Jersey.

Dorothy Wade, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Cydni Williams, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

References

  • 1.Cummings MJ, Baldwin MR, Abrams D, et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395:1763–1770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, et al. Presenting characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes among 5700 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City area. JAMA. 2020;323(20): 2052–2059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wunsch H, Guerra C, Barnato AE, Angus DC, Li G, Linde-Zwirble WT. Three-year outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries who survive intensive care. JAMA. 2010;303:849–856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lone NI, Gillies MA, Haddow C, et al. Five-year mortality and hospital costs associated with surviving intensive care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194:198–208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Herridge MS, Tansey CM, Matte A, et al. Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1293–1304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bienvenu OJ, Colantuoni E, Mendez-Tellez PA, et al. Depressive symptoms and impaired physical function after acute lung injury: a 2-year longitudinal study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;185:517–524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jackson JC, Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, et al. Depression,post-traumatic stress disorder, and functional disability in survivors of critical illness in the BRAIN-ICU study: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2:369–379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, et al. Improving longterm outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders’ conference. Crit Care Med. 2012; 40:502–509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hopkins RO, Jackson JC. Long-term neurocognitive function after critical illness. Chest. 2006;130:869–878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Davydow DS, Desai SV, Needham DM, Bienvenu OJ. Psychiatric morbidity in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review. Psychosom Med. 2008; 70:512–519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Davydow DS, Gifford JM, Desai SV, Bienvenu OJ, Needham DM. Depression in general intensive care unit survivors: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:796–809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Parker AM, Sricharoenchai T, Raparla S, Schneck KW, Bienvenu OJ, Needham DM. Posttraumatic stress disorder in critical illness survivors: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1121–1129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.McPeake J, Mikkelsen ME, Quasim T, et al. Return to employment after critical illness and its association with psychosocial outcomes. a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16:1304–1311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hauschildt KE, Seigworth C, Kamphuis LA, et al. Financial toxicity after acute respiratory distress syndrome: a national qualitative cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2020;48: 1103–1110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Devlin JW, O’Neal HR Jr, Thomas C, et al. Strategies to optimize ICU liberation (A to F) bundle performance in critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019. Crit Care Explor. 2020;2:e0139. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brown SM, Azoulay E, Benoit D, et al. The practice of respect in the ICU. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197: 1389–1395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Charon R Narrative reciprocity. Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44:S21–S24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fiske ST, Molm LD. Bridging inequality from both sides now. Soc Psychol Q. 2010;73:341–346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Davis T, Gorgens K, Shriberg J, Godleski M, Meyer L. Making meaning in a burn peer support group: qualitative analysis of attendee interviews. J Burn Care Res. 2014;35:416–425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dennis CL. Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40:321–332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mikkelsen ME, Jackson JC, Hopkins RO, et al. Peer support as a novel strategy to mitigate post-intensive care syndrome. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2016;27:221–229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.McPeake J, Hirshberg EL, Christie LM, et al. Models of peer support to remediate post-intensive care syndrome: a report developed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive International Peer Support Collaborative. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:e21–e27. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Haines KJ, Beesley SJ, Hopkins RO, et al. Peer support in critical care: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2018;46: 1522–1531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.McPeake J, Iwashyna TJ, Boehm LM, et al. Benefits of peer support for intensive care unit survivors: sharing experiences, care debriefing, and altruism. Am J Crit Care. 2021;30(1):145–149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Haines KJ, McPeake J, Hibbert E, et al. Enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups following critical illness: the Thrive Collaboratives. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:1194–1200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chua IS, Jackson V, Kamdar M. Webside manner during the COVID-19 pandemic: maintaining human connection during virtual visits. J Palliat Med. 2020;23(11):1507–1509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ashana DC, Lewis C, Hart JL. Dealing with “difficult” patients and families: making a case for trauma-informed care in the intensive care unit. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17:541–544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jones AC, Hilton R, Ely B, et al. Facilitating posttraumatic growth after critical illness. Am J Crit Care. 2020;29(6):e108–e115. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2020149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Skousen T, Safadi H, Young C, Karahanna E, Safadi S, Chebib F. Successful moderation in online patient communities: inductive case study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e15983. doi: 10.2196/15983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Haines KJ, Sevin CM, Hibbert E, et al. Key mechanisms bywhich post-ICU activities can improve in-ICU care: results of the international THRIVE collaboratives. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45:939–947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374:1097–1104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Solis S, Bernot S, Kover N. A lesson in failure: when innovation in post–intensive care unit management yields negative results. Am J Crit Care. 2019;28:486–487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES