Dyspnoea in acutely ill mechanically ventilated adult patients: an ERS/ESICM statement

This statement outlines a review of the literature and current practice concerning the prevalence, clinical significance, diagnosis and management of dyspnoea in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients. It covers the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, short- and middle-term impact, detection and quantification, and prevention and treatment of dyspnoea. It represents a collaboration of the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Dyspnoea ranks among the most distressing experiences that human beings can endure. Approximately 40% of patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) report dyspnoea, with an average intensity of 45 mm on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 mm. Although it shares many similarities with pain, dyspnoea can be far worse than pain in that it summons a primal fear response. As such, it merits universal and specific consideration. Dyspnoea must be identified, prevented and relieved in every patient. In the ICU, mechanically ventilated patients are at high risk of experiencing breathing difficulties because of their physiological status and, in some instances, because of mechanical ventilation itself. At the same time, mechanically ventilated patients have barriers to signalling their distress. Addressing this major clinical challenge mandates teaching and training, and involves ICU caregivers and patients. This is even more important because, as opposed to pain which has become a universal healthcare concern, very little attention has been paid to the identification and management of respiratory suffering in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

Dyspnoea in acutely ill mechanically ventilated adult patients: an ERS/ESICM statement

This statement outlines a review of the literature and current practice concerning the prevalence, clinical significance, diagnosis and management of dyspnoea in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients. It covers the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, short- and middle-term impact, detection and quantification, and prevention and treatment of dyspnoea. It represents a collaboration of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Dyspnoea ranks among the most distressing experiences that human beings can endure. Approximately 40% of patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) report dyspnoea, with an average intensity of 45 mm on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 mm. Although it shares many similarities with pain, dyspnoea can be far worse than pain in that it summons a primal fear response. As such, it merits universal and specific consideration. Dyspnoea must be identified, prevented and relieved in every patient. In the ICU, mechanically ventilated patients are at high risk of experiencing breathing difficulties because of their physiological status and, in some instances, because of mechanical ventilation itself. At the same time, mechanically ventilated patients have barriers to signalling their distress. Addressing this major clinical challenge mandates teaching and training, and involves ICU caregivers and patients. This is even more important because, as opposed to pain which has become a universal healthcare concern, very little attention has been paid to the identification and management of respiratory suffering in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

Interventions Relieving Dyspnea in Intubated Patients Show Responsiveness of the Mechanical Ventilation-Respiratory Distress Observation Scale

Rationale: Breathing difficulties are highly stressful. In critically ill patients, they are associated with an increased risk of posttraumatic manifestations. Dyspnea, the corresponding symptom, cannot be directly assessed in noncommunicative patients. This difficulty can be circumvented using observation scales such as the mechanical ventilation-respiratory distress observation scale (MV-RDOS). Objective: To investigate the performance and responsiveness of the MV-RDOS to infer dyspnea in noncommunicative intubated patients. Methods: Communicative and noncommunicative patients exhibiting breathing difficulties under mechanical ventilation were prospectively included and assessed using a dyspnea visual analog scale, MV-RDOS, EMG activity of alae nasi and parasternal intercostals, and EEG signatures of respiratory-related cortical activation (preinspiratory potentials). Inspiratory-muscle EMG and preinspiratory cortical activities are surrogates of dyspnea. Assessments were conducted at baseline, after adjustment of ventilator settings, and, in some cases, after morphine administration. Measurements and Main Results: Fifty patients (age, 67 [(interquartile interval [IQR]), 61-76] yr; Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, 52 [IQR, 35-62]) were included, 25 of whom were noncommunicative. Relief occurred in 25 (50%) patients after ventilator adjustments and in 21 additional patients after morphine administration. In noncommunicative patients, MV-RDOS score decreased from 5.5 (IQR, 4.2-6.6) at baseline to 4.2 (IQR, 2.1-4.7; P < 0.001) after ventilator adjustments and 2.5 (IQR, 2.1-4.2; P = 0.024) after morphine administration. MV-RDOS and alae nasi/parasternal EMG activities were positively correlated (ρ = 0.41 and 0.37, respectively). MV-RDOS scores were higher in patients with EEG preinspiratory potentials (4.9 [IQR, 4.2-6.3] vs. 4.0 [IQR, 2.1-4.9]; P = 0.002). Conclusions: The MV-RDOS seems able to detect and monitor respiratory symptoms reasonably well in noncommunicative intubated patients. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02801838).

Respiratory distress observation scales to predict weaning outcome

Background

Whether dyspnea is present before starting a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and whether it may affect the outcome of the SBT is unknown. Mechanical Ventilation—Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (MV-RDOS) has been proposed as a reliable surrogate of dyspnea in non-communicative intubated patients. In the present study, we sought (1) to describe the evolution of the MV-RDOS during a SBT and (2) to investigate whether MV-RDOS can predict the outcome of the SBT.

Methods

Prospective, single-center study in a twenty-two bed ICU in a tertiary center. Patients intubated since more 48 h who had failed a first SBT were eligible if they meet classical readiness to wean criteria. The MV-RDOS was assessed before, at 2-min, 15-min and 30-min (end) of the SBT. The presence of clinically important dyspnea was inferred by a MV-RDOS value ≥  2.6.

Results

Fifty-eight patients (age 63 [51–70], SAPS II 66 [51–76]; med [IQR]) were included. Thirty-three (57%) patients failed the SBT, whose 18 (55%) failed before 15-min. Twenty-five (43%) patients successfully passed the SBT. A MV-RDOS ≥ 2.6 was present in ten (17%) patients before to start the SBT. All these ten patients subsequently failed the SBT. A MV-RDOS ≥ 2.6 at 2-min predicted a SBT failure with a 51% sensibility and a 88% specificity (AUC 0.741 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.616–0.866, p = 0.002). Best cut-off value at 2-min was 4.3 and predicted SBT failure with a 27% sensibility and a 96% specificity.

Conclusion

Despite patients met classical readiness to wean criteria, respiratory distress assessed with the MV-RDOS was frequent at the beginning of SBT. Measuring MV-RDOS before to initiate a SBT could avoid undue procedure and reduce patient’s exposure to unnecessary mechanical ventilation weaning failure and distress.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04028-7.

Respiratory Distress Observation Scale Italian Version: Cultural-Linguistic Validation and Psychometric Properties

Dyspnea can be assessed using self-rating scales but, as death approaches, self-reporting becomes difficult. The validated Respiratory Distress Observation Scale measures dyspnea distress. The aim of this study was to develop the Italian version of the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale and to examine its psychometric properties. This was a cross-sectional study, analyzing cultural and linguistic validation, content validity, and psychometric properties. Eighty-nine palliative care subjects were enrolled to validate the Italian version of the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale. Patients had an average age of 74.5 (SD, 11.6) years, and 52% (n = 46) were female. Fourteen experts in palliative care evaluated the Italian Respiratory Distress Observation Scale in terms of the content validity ratio and the content validity index (CVI). The Italian Respiratory Distress Observation Scale was reported with an internal consistency (Cronbach α value) of .72 and an overall substantial interrater reliability (Cohen κ method). The Italian Respiratory Distress Observation Scale achieved a scale-level CVI of 93%, an items-level CVI of greater than 86%, and a minimum content validity ratio value of 0.71. A weak positive correlation was found between the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale and the Dyspnea Visual Analog Scale scores (0.374; P < .001). The Italian Respiratory Distress Observation Scale showed good reliability and validity for patients in palliative care. The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale measured respiratory distress in patients nearest to death.

Exploration and Development of a Simpler Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (modRDOS-4) as a Dyspnea Screening Tool: A Prospective Bedside Study

Introduction: End-of-life patients face difficulties in reporting respiratory distress. The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (RDOS) is a well-known tool; however, field implementation has been challenging from ground feedback. We sought to develop a simpler scale. Setting: Patients referred for palliative consult in a tertiary hospital in Singapore were recruited. Methods: A priori, we identified 18 dyspnea physical signs and documented their presence through bedside observation. Dyspnea severity was self-reported. The cohort was randomly split into training and test sets. Partial least square regression with leave-one-out cross-validation was used to develop a four-point model from the training set. Using the test set, data fit was compared using Akaike and Bayesian Information Criterion. Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristics. Results: Of 122 patients, mean age was 67.9 years (range 23-93, standard deviation 12.9), 71.3% had a primary cancer diagnosis, and 58.1% were chair/bedbound with a Palliative Performance Scale of ≤50. Median reported dyspnea scale was 5 (interquartile range 3-7). Our model (modRDOS-4) consisted of four predictors (grunting, respiratory rate, accessory muscle use, paradoxical breathing). A modRDOS-4 of ≥6 identified moderate-to-severe dyspnea with a sensitivity of 0.78 and specificity of 0.90. Using the test set, with the modRDOS-4, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) is 149.8, Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) is 154.1, and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) is 0.74. With the original RDOS, the AIC is 145.2, BIC is 149.5, and ROC is 0.76. Conclusion: For a quick assessment of dyspnea, we developed a four-item tool with a pilot web-based nomogram. External validation is needed.

Validity, Reliability, and Diagnostic Accuracy of the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale for Assessment of Dyspnea in Adult Palliative Care Patients

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and severity of dyspnea increase at the end of life. Many of these patients have difficulty in reporting their symptoms. Accurate surrogate measures are needed for appropriate assessment and treatment. The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (RDOS) is proposed as a possible scale although more external validation is needed. We set out to validate the RDOS in the context of palliative care patients near the end of life.

MEASURES

We prospectively studied 122 palliative care patients in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. Prior RDOS training was done using a standardized instructional video. Dyspnea was assessed by RDOS, Dyspnea Numerical Rating Scale, and Dyspnea Categorical Scale. Pain was assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Scale. We measured RDOS inter-rater reliability, convergent validity, and divergent validity. We used area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) analysis to examine the discriminant properties of RDOS using dyspnea self-report as benchmark.

RESULTS

RDOS had good inter-rater reliability with an intraclass correlation of 0.947 (95% CI 0.919-0.976). It showed moderate-to-strong correlation with Dyspnea Numerical Rating Scale (r = 0.702) and Dyspnea Categorical Scale (r = 0.677) and negligible correlation to Pain Numerical Rating Scale (r = 0.080). It showed good discriminant properties of identifying patients with moderate and severe dyspnea with an AUC of 0.874 (95% CI 0.812-0.936). RDOS ≥ 4 predicted patients with moderate and severe dyspnea with a sensitivity of 76.6%, specificity of 86.2%, positive predictive value of 86.0%, and negative predictive value of 76.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The RDOS shows promise and clinical utility as an observational dyspnea assessment tool. Further studies in uncommunicative patients are needed to determine clinical usefulness and generalizability of results.

Ensuring Breathing Comfort at the End of Life: The Integral Role of the Critical Care Nurse

This article describes the author's program of clinical research focused on assessment and treatment of respiratory distress among critically ill patients at the end of life. Dyspnea is a subjective experience of breathing discomfort that occurs in the presence of cardiopulmonary and neuromuscular diseases. Dyspnea is one of the most common and most distressing symptoms experienced by critically ill patients. Many critically ill patients, particularly those not expected to survive, become cognitively impaired or unconscious and lose the ability to report symptoms, although dyspnea can be known only from a patient's report. When self-reporting ability is lost, the critical care nurse must rely on signs indicative of a patient's respiratory distress. The critically ill patient unable to self-report is vulnerable to under-recognition of symptom distress and subsequent over-treatment or undertreatment. When the patient is dying, there is only 1 chance to optimize the assessment and treatment of symptoms.

Dyspnea

Dyspnea is a subjective experience of breathing discomfort that can only be known through a patient's report. Numeric rating or visual analog scales allow assessment of intensity when the patient can self-report. The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale is a valid, reliable tool for estimating distress when self-report cannot be elicited. Treating dyspnea begins with managing the underlying condition. Other dyspnea-specific evidence-based interventions include morphine and fentanyl, upright positioning, oxygen, invasive and noninvasive ventilation, and balancing rest with activity. Effectiveness has not been established for benzodiazepines, nebulized furosemide, oxygen in the face of normoxemia, other opioids, and nebulized fentanyl.

Symptom assessment in non-vocal or cognitively impaired ICU patients: Implications for practice and future research

BACKGROUND

Symptom assessment in critically ill patients is challenging because many cannot provide a self-report.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the state of the science on symptom communication and the assessment of selected physical symptoms in non-vocal ICU patients.

METHODS

This paper summarizes a 2014 American Thoracic Society Annual International Conference symposium presenting current evidence on symptom communication, delirium, and the assessment of common physical symptoms (i.e., dyspnea, pain, weakness, and fatigue) experienced by non-vocal ICU patients.

RESULTS

Symptom assessment begins with accurate assessment, which includes an evaluation of delirium, and assistance in symptom communication. Simple self-report measures (e.g., 0-10 numeric rating scale), observational measures (e.g., Respiratory Distress Observation Scale and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool), or objective measures (e.g., manual muscle testing and hand dynamometry) have demonstrated utility among this population.

CONCLUSION

Optimizing symptom assessment with valid and reliable instruments with minimum patient burden is necessary to advance clinical practice and research in this field.

The validity and reliability of the clinical assessment of increased work of breathing in acutely ill patients

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation is frequently indicated to reduce the work of breathing. Because it cannot be measured easily at the bedside, physicians rely on surrogate measurements such as patient appearance of distress and increased breathing effort.

OBJECTIVE

We determined the validity and reliability of subjectively rating the appearance of respiratory distress and the reliability of 11 signs of increased breathing effort.

SUBJECTS

The study included consecutive, acutely ill patients requiring various levels of respiratory support.

METHODS

Blinded to each other's observations, a fellow and a critical care consultant rated the severity of distress (absent, slight, moderate, severe) after observing subjects for 10 seconds and then determined the presence of the signs of increased breathing effort.

RESULTS

A total of 149 paired examinations occurred 6±6 minutes apart. The rating of respiratory distress correlated with oxygenation, respiratory rate, and 9 signs of increased work of breathing. It had the highest intraclass correlation coefficient (0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.78). Rating distress as moderate to severe had a sensitivity of 70%, specificity of 92%, and positive likelihood ratio of 8 for the presence of 3 or more of hypoxia, tachypnea, and any sign of increased breathing effort. Agreement was moderate (κ = 0.53-0.47) for rating of distress, nasal flaring, scalene contraction, gasping, and abdominal muscle contraction, and fair (κ = 0.36-0.23) for sternomastoid contraction, tracheal tug, and thoracoabdominal paradox.

CONCLUSION

Assessing the increased work of breathing by rating the severity of respiratory distress based on subject appearance is a valid and moderately reliable sign that predicts the presence of serious respiratory dysfunction. The reliability of the individual signs of increased breathing effort is moderate at best.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Respiratory Distress Observation Scales as Surrogates of Dyspnea Self-report in Intensive Care Unit Patients

Background:

Dyspnea, like pain, can cause major suffering in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Its evaluation relies on self-report; hence, the risk of being overlooked when verbal communication is impaired. Observation scales incorporating respiratory and behavioral signs (respiratory distress observation scales [RDOS]) can provide surrogates of dyspnea self-report in similar clinical contexts (palliative care).

Methods:

The authors prospectively studied (single center, 16-bed ICU, large university hospital) 220 communicating ICU patients (derivation cohort, 120 patients; separate validation cohort, 100 patients). Dyspnea was assessed by dyspnea visual analog scale (D-VAS) and RDOS calculated from its eight components (heart rate, respiratory rate, nonpurposeful movements, neck muscle use during inspiration, abdominal paradox, end-expiratory grunting, nasal flaring, and facial expression of fear). An iterative principal component analysis and partial least square regression process aimed at identifying an optimized D-VAS correlate (intensive care RDOS [IC-RDOS]).

Results:

In the derivation cohort, RDOS significantly correlated with D-VAS (r = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.58). A five-item IC-RDOS (heart rate, neck muscle use during inspiration, abdominal paradox, facial expression of fear, and supplemental oxygen) significantly better correlated with D-VAS (r = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.72). The median area under the receiver operating curve of IC-RDOS to predict D-VAS was 0.83 (interquartile range, 0.81 to 0.84). An IC-RDOS of 2.4 predicted D-VAS of 4 or greater with equal sensitivity and specificity (72%); an IC-RDOS of 6.3 predicted D-VAS of 4 or greater with 100% specificity. Similar results were found in the validation cohort.

Conclusions:

Combinations of observable signs correlate with dyspnea in communicating ICU patients. Future studies in noncommunicating patients will be needed to determine the responsiveness to therapeutic interventions and clinical usefulness.

Intensity cut-points for the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale

BACKGROUND

The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale(©) is an innovative solution to assessment when a dyspnea report cannot be elicited. The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale has acceptable reliability and validity psychometrics.

AIM

To identify distress-intensity cut-points of the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale.

DESIGN

Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was conducted with inpatients stratified by four levels of respiratory distress-none, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients provided three self-report measures of dyspnea: dichotomous (yes/no); a ranking of none, mild, moderate, or severe; and a numerical rating scale. Respiratory distress was assessed using the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale instrument.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 136 adult inpatients, mean age 61.8 years (standard deviation = 13.18 years), 89.7% African American, and 56.6% female, who were recruited from an urban, tertiary care hospital in the Midwest of the United States.

RESULTS

In all, 47% (n = 64) self-reported dyspnea (yes/no). Ranking was distributed as follows: none = 36, mild = 35, moderate = 40, and severe = 25. Numerical rating scale scores ranged from 0 to 10, mean = 4.99 (standard deviation = 2.9). Respiratory Distress Observation Scale scores ranged from 0 to 7, median (interquartile range) = 2 (1-3). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis-determined Respiratory Distress Observation Scale score of 0-2 suggests little or no respiratory distress; score ≥3 signified moderate to severe distress.

CONCLUSION

A Respiratory Distress Observation Scale score ≥3 signifies a patient's need for palliation of respiratory distress. An end-point for identifying responsiveness to treatment, in other words, respiratory comfort, is Respiratory Distress Observation Scale <3. Because patients with imminent respiratory failure, as typified by dying patients, were not represented yielding lower than expected Respiratory Distress Observation Scale scores, further substantiation is needed to determine moderate or severe cut-points.

Palliative care in the ICU: relief of pain, dyspnea, and thirst--a report from the IPAL-ICU Advisory Board

PURPOSE

Pain, dyspnea, and thirst are three of the most prevalent, intense, and distressing symptoms of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. In this report, the interdisciplinary Advisory Board of the Improving Palliative Care in the ICU (IPAL-ICU) Project brings together expertise in both critical care and palliative care along with current information to address challenges in assessment and management.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive review of literature focusing on intensive care and palliative care research related to palliation of pain, dyspnea, and thirst.

RESULTS

Evidence-based methods to assess pain are the enlarged 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for ICU patients able to self-report and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool or Behavior Pain Scale for patients who cannot report symptoms verbally or non-verbally. The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale is the only known behavioral scale for assessment of dyspnea, and thirst is evaluated by patient self-report using an 0-10 NRS. Opioids remain the mainstay for pain management, and all available intravenous opioids, when titrated to similar pain intensity end points, are equally effective. Dyspnea is treated (with or without invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation) by optimizing the underlying etiological condition, patient positioning and, sometimes, supplemental oxygen. Several oral interventions are recommended to alleviate thirst. Systematized improvement efforts addressing symptom management and assessment can be implemented in ICUs.

CONCLUSIONS

Relief of symptom distress is a key component of critical care for all ICU patients, regardless of condition or prognosis. Evidence-based approaches for assessment and treatment together with well-designed work systems can help ensure comfort and related favorable outcomes for the critically ill.

Oxygen is nonbeneficial for most patients who are near death

CONTEXT

Clinicians prescribe and administer oxygen in response to reports of dyspnea, in the face of dropping oxygen saturation, as a "routine" comfort intervention, or to support anxious family members. Oxygen may produce nasal irritation and increase the cost of care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefit of administering oxygen to patients who are near death.

METHODS

A double-blind, repeated-measure observation with the patient as his/her own control was conducted. The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale(©) measured presence and intensity of distress at baseline and at every gas or flow change. Medical air, oxygen, and no flow were randomly alternated every 10 minutes via nasal cannula with patients who were near death, at risk for respiratory distress, with no distress at the baseline of testing. Each patient had two encounters under each condition, yielding six encounters per patient.

RESULTS

Patients were 66% female, 34% white, and 66% African American, and ages 56-97 years. Patients had heart failure (25%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (34%), pneumonia (41%), or lung cancer (9%). Most (91%) patients tolerated the protocol with no change in respiratory comfort. Three patients (9%) displayed distress and were restored to baseline oxygen; one patient died during the protocol while displaying no distress. Repeated-measure analysis of variance revealed no differences in the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale under changing gas and flow conditions.

CONCLUSION

The routine application of oxygen to patients who are near death is not supported. The n-of-1 trial of oxygen in clinical practice is appropriate in the face of hypoxemic respiratory distress.

Patients who are near death are frequently unable to self-report dyspnea

BACKGROUND

Standard measures of dyspnea rely on the patient's self-report. Declining consciousness and/or cognitive function and nearness to death may interfere with dyspnea reporting making the patient vulnerable to undertreatment or overtreatment.

METHODS

An observational design was used with 89 consecutive patients referred for inpatient palliative care consultation. Patients were included if they were at risk for dyspnea because of one or more of the following: lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure, or pneumonia. Patients were asked "Are you short of breath?" and asked to quantify any distress by pointing to a visual analogue scale (VAS). Other measures included: consciousness, cognitive state, terminal illness severity, and patient demographics.

RESULTS

More than half of the patients (54%) were unable to provide a yes or no response. Only 20 of 41 (49%) able to respond with yes or no were able to quantify any distress with the VAS. Ability to self-report was positively associated with consciousness (p < 0.01), cognitive state (p < 0.01), and terminal illness severity (p < 0.01). A significant inverse relationship was found between consciousness and terminal illness severity (p < 0.01). Declines in consciousness and cognitive state were strongly correlated with nearness to death (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Declining consciousness and/or cognitive state are expected when patients are near death. The ability to give even the simplest self-report (yes or no) about dyspnea is lost in the near-death phase of terminal illness, yet the ability to experience distress may persist and may be overlooked and undertreated or overtreated. Other methods for symptom assessment are needed in this context.

A Respiratory Distress Observation Scale for patients unable to self-report dyspnea

BACKGROUND

Standard measures of dyspnea rely on self-report. Cognitive impairment and nearness to death may interfere with symptom distress reporting leading to underrecognition and overtreatment or undertreatment. Previous psychometric testing of the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (RDOS) demonstrated internal consistency and convergent validity with dyspnea self-report and discriminant validity with pain and no dyspnea. Additional testing was needed with patients unable to self-report. The aim of this study was to establish further the reliability and construct validity of a revised RDOS.

METHODS

An observational design was used with 89 consecutive patients referred for inpatient palliative care consultation and at risk for dyspnea who had one or more of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure, or pneumonia. Patients were observed and the RDOS scored once each day for up to three days after the initial consultation. Other measures included: dyspnea self-report, neurologic diagnoses, opioid or benzodiazepine use, peripheral oxygen saturation, end-tidal carbon dioxide level, consciousness, cognitive state, nearness to death, and patient demographics.

RESULTS

Perfect interrater reliability across data collectors was achieved. No differences in RDOS scoring were found by patient demographics. RDOS was associated with use of oxygen (p < 0.01), oxygen saturation (p < 0.01) and nearness to death (p < 0.01). A significant decrease in RDOS was found over time corresponding with treatment (p < 0.01). The reliability of this 8-item scale using Cronbach alpha is 0.64.

CONCLUSIONS

Declining consciousness and/or cognition are expected when patients are near death. The RDOS performed well when tested with terminally ill patients who were at risk for respiratory distress, most of whom could not self-report dyspnea. The tool is sensitive to detect changes over time and measure response to treatment. The RDOS is simple to use; scoring takes less than 5 minutes. The RDOS has clinical and research utility to measure and trend respiratory distress and response to treatment.

Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a consensus statement by the American College [corrected] of Critical Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

These recommendations have been developed to improve the care of intensive care unit (ICU) patients during the dying process. The recommendations build on those published in 2003 and highlight recent developments in the field from a U.S. perspective. They do not use an evidence grading system because most of the recommendations are based on ethical and legal principles that are not derived from empirically based evidence.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Family-centered care, which emphasizes the importance of the social structure within which patients are embedded, has emerged as a comprehensive ideal for managing end-of-life care in the ICU. ICU clinicians should be competent in all aspects of this care, including the practical and ethical aspects of withdrawing different modalities of life-sustaining treatment and the use of sedatives, analgesics, and nonpharmacologic approaches to easing the suffering of the dying process. Several key ethical concepts play a foundational role in guiding end-of-life care, including the distinctions between withholding and withdrawing treatments, between actions of killing and allowing to die, and between consequences that are intended vs. those that are merely foreseen (the doctrine of double effect). Improved communication with the family has been shown to improve patient care and family outcomes. Other knowledge unique to end-of-life care includes principles for notifying families of a patient's death and compassionate approaches to discussing options for organ donation. End-of-life care continues even after the death of the patient, and ICUs should consider developing comprehensive bereavement programs to support both families and the needs of the clinical staff. Finally, a comprehensive agenda for improving end-of-life care in the ICU has been developed to guide research, quality improvement efforts, and educational curricula.

CONCLUSIONS

End-of-life care is emerging as a comprehensive area of expertise in the ICU and demands the same high level of knowledge and competence as all other areas of ICU practice.

Psychometric testing of a respiratory distress observation scale

The purpose of this study was to establish the reliability and construct validity of a new behavioral instrument to measure the presence and intensity of respiratory distress for patients who are unable to self-report about dyspnea. Patient reports about dyspnea were compared to displayed behaviors in three groups of 70 patients (n = 210). Pulmonary rehabilitation patients were assessed with the respiratory distress observation scale (RDOS) after controlled exercise while hypoxemic and subsequently asked to report current dyspnea on a dyspnea visual analog scale (DVAS). Patients with postoperative orthopedic pain were evaluated with the RDOS and asked to report current pain and dyspnea. Healthy volunteers were assessed with the RDOS at rest and asked to report current dyspnea. The internal consistency (alpha) of this seven variable scale is 0.78. A positive correlation between the RDOS and DVAS (p = 0.001) was found in dyspneic patients indicating convergent validity. Significant differences were found when RDOS scores were compared between groups indicating discriminant validity. The instrument is reliable and has convergent and discriminant validity. There are clinical and research applications for this scale for assessment of patients who are unable to self-report about distress from dyspnea.