Intensive care admission decisions for a patient with limited survival prospects: a questionnaire and database analysis

Characteristics of critically ill patients with cancer associated with intensivist's perception of inappropriateness of ICU admission: A retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Although admitting cancer patients to the ICU is no longer an issue, it may be valuable to identify patients perceived least likely to benefit from admission. Our objective was to investigate factors associated with potentially inappropriate ICU admission.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer with unplanned ICU admission. We classified admissions as appropriate or potentially inappropriate according to Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines. We used logistic regression model to assess factors associated with inappropriateness for ICU admission.

RESULTS

From 3384 patients, 663 (19.6%) were classified as potentially inappropriate. They received more invasive mechanical ventilation (25.3% vs 12.5%, P < 0.001) and vasopressors (34.4% vs 30.1%, P = 0.034), had higher ICU [3 (2,6) vs 2 (1,4), P < 0.001] length-of-stay, higher ICU (32.7% vs 8.4%, P < 0.001), hospital (71.9% vs 21.3%, P < 0.001), and one-year mortality (97.6% vs 54.7%, P < 0.001) compared with those considered appropriate. Performance status impairment, more severe organ dysfunctions at admission, metastatic disease, and source of ICU admission were the characteristics associated with intensivist's perception of inappropriateness of ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings may help guide ICU admission policies and triage criteria for end-of-life discussions among hospitalized patients with cancer.

UK consultants' experiences of the decision-making process around referral to intensive care: an interview study

OBJECTIVE

The decision whether to initiate intensive care for the critically ill patient involves ethical questions regarding what is good and right for the patient. It is not clear how referring doctors negotiate these issues in practice. The aim of this study was to describe and understand consultants' experiences of the decision-making process around referral to intensive care.

DESIGN

Qualitative interviews were analysed according to a phenomenological hermeneutical method.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Consultant doctors (n=27) from departments regularly referring patients to intensive care in six UK hospitals.

RESULTS

In the precarious and uncertain situation of critical illness, trust in the decision-making process is needed and can be enhanced through the way in which the process unfolds. When there are no obvious right or wrong answers as to what ought to be done, how the decision is made and how the process unfolds is morally important. Through acknowledging the burdensome doubts in the process, contributing to an emerging, joint understanding of the patient's situation, and responding to mutual moral duties of the doctors involved, trust in the decision-making process can be enhanced and a shared moral responsibility between the stake holding doctors can be assumed.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the importance of trust in the decision-making process and how the relationships between the stakeholding doctors are crucial to support their moral responsibility for the patient. Poor interpersonal relationships can damage trust and negatively impact decisions made on behalf of a critically ill patient. For this reason, active attempts must be made to foster good relationships between doctors. This is not only important to create a positive working environment, but a mechanism to improve patient outcomes.

Developing an intervention around referral and admissions to intensive care: a mixed-methods study

Background

Intensive care treatment can be life-saving, but it is invasive and distressing for patients receiving it and it is not always successful. Deciding whether or not a patient will benefit from intensive care is a difficult clinical and ethical challenge.

Objectives

To explore the decision-making process for referral and admission to the intensive care unit and to develop and test an intervention to improve it.

Methods

A mixed-methods study comprising (1) two systematic reviews investigating the factors associated with decisions to admit patients to the intensive care unit and the experiences of clinicians, patients and families; (2) observation of decisions and interviews with intensive care unit doctors, referring doctors, and patients and families in six NHS trusts in the Midlands, UK; (3) a choice experiment survey distributed to UK intensive care unit consultants and critical care outreach nurses, eliciting their preferences for factors used in decision-making for intensive care unit admission; (4) development of a decision-support intervention informed by the previous work streams, including an ethical framework for decision-making and supporting referral and decision-support forms and patient and family information leaflets. Implementation feasibility was tested in three NHS trusts; (5) development and testing of a tool to evaluate the ethical quality of decision-making related to intensive care unit admission, based on the assessment of patient records. The tool was tested for inter-rater and intersite reliability in 120 patient records.

Results

Influences on decision-making identified in the systematic review and ethnographic study included age, presence of chronic illness, functional status, presence of a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order, referring specialty, referrer seniority and intensive care unit bed availability. Intensive care unit doctors used a gestalt assessment of the patient when making decisions. The choice experiment showed that age was the most important factor in consultants’ and critical care outreach nurses’ preferences for admission. The ethnographic study illuminated the complexity of the decision-making process, and the importance of interprofessional relationships and good communication between teams and with patients and families. Doctors found it difficult to articulate and balance the benefits and burdens of intensive care unit treatment for a patient. There was low uptake of the decision-support intervention, although doctors who used it noted that it improved articulation of reasons for decisions and communication with patients.

Limitations

Limitations existed in each of the component studies; for example, we had difficulty recruiting patients and families in our qualitative work. However, the project benefited from a mixed-method approach that mitigated the potential limitations of the component studies.

Conclusions

Decision-making surrounding referral and admission to the intensive care unit is complex. This study has provided evidence and resources to help clinicians and organisations aiming to improve the decision-making for and, ultimately, the care of critically ill patients.

Future work

Further research is needed into decision-making practices, particularly in how best to engage with patients and families during the decision process. The development and evaluation of training for clinicians involved in these decisions should be a priority for future work.

Study registration

The systematic reviews of this study are registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039054, CRD42015019711 and CRD42015019714.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit.

What are the characteristics that lead physicians to perceive an ICU stay as non-beneficial for the patient?

Purpose

We sought to describe the characteristics that lead physicians to perceive a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) as being non-beneficial for the patient.

Materials and methods

In the first step, we used a multidisciplinary focus group to define the characteristics that lead physicians to consider a stay in the ICU as non-beneficial for the patient. In the second step, we assessed the proportion of admissions that would be perceived by the ICU physicians as non-beneficial for the patient according to our focus group’s definition, in a large population of ICU admissions in 4 French ICUs over a period of 4 months.

Results

Among 1075 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the study period, 155 stays were considered non-beneficial for the patient, yielding a frequency of 14.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.9, 19.9]. Average age of these patients was 72 ±12.8 years. Mortality was 43.2% in-ICU [95%CI 35.4, 51.0], 55% [95%CI 47.2, 62.8] in-hospital. The criteria retained by the focus group to define a non-beneficial ICU stay were: patient refusal of ICU care (23.2% [95%CI 16.5, 29.8]), and referring physician’s desire not to have the patient admitted (11.6% [95%CI 6.6, 16.6]). The characteristics that led physicians to perceive the stay as non-beneficial were: patient’s age (36.8% [95%CI 29.2, 44.4]), unlikelihood of recovering autonomy (61.9% [95%CI 54.3, 69.6]), prior poor quality of life (60% [95%CI 52.3, 67.7]), terminal status of chronic disease (56.1% [95%CI 48.3, 63.9]), and all therapeutic options have been exhausted (35.5% [95%CI 27.9, 43.0]). Factors that explained admission to the ICU of patients whose stay was subsequently judged to be non-beneficial included: lack of knowledge of patient’s wishes (52% [95%CI 44.1, 59.9]); decisional incapacity (sedation) (69.7% [95%CI 62.5, 76.9]); inability to contact family (34% [95%CI 26.5, 41.5]); pressure to admit (from family or other physicians) (50.3% [95%CI 42.4, 58.2]).

Conclusions

Non-beneficial ICU stays are frequent. ICU admissions need to be anticipated, so that patients who would yield greater benefit from other care pathways can be correctly oriented in a timely manner.

Clinicians' Perceptions of Futile or Potentially Inappropriate Care and Associations with Avoidant Behaviors and Burnout

Background: Futile or potentially inappropriate care (futile/PIC) for dying inpatients leads to negative outcomes for patients and clinicians. In the setting of rising end-of-life health care costs and increasing physician burnout, it is important to understand the causes of futile/PIC, how it impacts on care and relates to burnout. Objectives: Examine causes of futile/PIC, determine whether clinicians report compensatory or avoidant behaviors as a result of such care and assess whether these behaviors are associated with burnout. Design: Online, cross-sectional questionnaire. Setting/Subjects: Clinicians at two academic hospitals in New York City. Methods: Respondents were asked the frequency with which they observed or provided futile/PIC and whether they demonstrated compensatory or avoidant behaviors as a result. A validated screen was used to assess burnout. Measurements: Descriptive statistics, odds ratios, linear regressions. Results: Surveys were completed by 349 subjects. A majority of clinicians (91.3%) felt they had provided or "possibly" provided futile/PIC in the past six months. The most frequent reason cited for PIC (61.0%) was the insistence of the patient's family. Both witnessing and providing PIC were statistically significantly (p < 0.05) associated with compensatory and avoidant behaviors, but more strongly associated with avoidant behaviors. Provision of PIC increased the likelihood of avoiding the patient's loved ones by a factor of 2.40 (1.82-3.19), avoiding the patient by a factor of 1.83 (1.32-2.55), and avoiding colleagues by a factor of 2.56 (1.57-4.20) (all p < 0.001). Avoiding the patient's loved ones (β = 0.55, SE = 0.12, p < 0.001), avoiding the patient (β = 0.38, SE = 0.17; p = 0.03), and avoiding colleagues (β = 0.78, SE = 0.28; p = 0.01) were significantly associated with burnout. Conclusions: Futile/PIC, provided or observed, is associated with avoidance of patients, families, and colleagues and those behaviors are associated with burnout.

Decision-making in ICU - A systematic review of factors considered important by ICU clinician decision makers with regard to ICU triage decisions

BACKGROUND

The ICU is a scarce resource within a high-stress, high-stakes, time-sensitive environment where critically ill patients with life-threatening conditions receive expensive life-sustaining care under the guidance of expert qualified personnel. The implications of decisions such as suitability for admission into ICU are potentially dire and difficult.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of clinicians' subjective perceptions of factors that influence the decision to accept or refuse patients referred to ICU.

RESULTS

Twenty studies yielded 56 different factors classified into patient, physician and environmental. Common, important factors were: acute illness severity and reversibility; presence and severity of comorbidities; patient age, functional status, state-of-mind and wishes; physician level of experience and perception of patient QOL; and bed availability. Within-group variability among physicians and thought-deed discordance were demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

The complex and dynamic ICU triage decision is affected by numerous interacting factors. The literature provides some indication of these factors, but fail to show complexities and interactions between them. A decision tree is proposed. Further research should include a reflection on how decisions for admission to ICU are made, such that a better understanding of these processes can be achieved allowing for improved individual and group consistency.

Outcome of Patients Receiving High Dose Vasopressor Therapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to determine the hospital survival of patients receiving high doses of catecholamines.

A retrospective observational study was conducted in a 22-bed multidisciplinary adult intensive care unit of a tertiary referral university hospital. All patients (n = 64) receiving >100 μg/min of adrenaline or noradrenaline or adrenaline and noradrenaline combined over a one-year period were studied to determine survival to intensive care unit and hospital discharge. Four patients survived to intensive care unit discharge and hospital discharge (6.25%, 95% CI 0.3 to 12.2%). Survival was 3.3% (95% CI 0 to 7.9%) in the subgroup of 60 patients who received >100 μg/min noradrenaline and 3.6% (95% CI 0 to 8.6%) in the 55 patients who received >2 μg/kg/min noradrenaline. None of the 32 patients who received >200 μg/min noradrenaline survived.

We conclude that the survival of patients requiring high doses of catecholamines is poor, but the use of such doses is probably not futile. It remains for individual clinicians, patients and their surrogates to decide whether use of high doses of vasopressor is appropriate, given the low probability of survival.

Physicians’ perceptions and attitudes regarding inappropriate admissions and resource allocation in the intensive care setting †

BACKGROUND

Physicians' perceptions regarding intensive care unit (ICU) resource allocation and the problem of inappropriate admissions are unknown.

METHODS

We carried out an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire survey to assess the perceptions and attitudes of ICU physicians at all 20 ICUs in Milan, Italy, regarding inappropriate admissions and resource allocation.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven percent (225/259) of physicians responded. Inappropriate admissions were acknowledged by 86% of respondents. The reasons given were clinical doubt (33%); limited decision time (32%); assessment error (25%); pressure from superiors (13%), referring clinician (11%) or family (5%); threat of legal action (5%); and an economically advantageous 'Diagnosis Related Group' (1%). Respondents reported being pressurized to make more 'productive' use of ICU beds by Unit heads (frequently 16%), hospital management (frequently 10%) and colleagues (frequently 4%). Five percent reported refusing appropriate admissions following 'indications' not to admit financially disadvantageous cases. Admissions after elective surgery prioritized patients from profitable surgical departments: frequently for 6% of respondents and occasionally for 15%. Sixty-seven percent said they frequently received requests for appropriate admissions when no beds were available. This was considered sufficient reason to withdraw treatment from patients with lower survival probability (sometimes 21%) or for whom nothing more could be done (sometimes 51%, frequently 11%).

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate ICU admissions were perceived as a common event but were mainly attributed to difficulties in assessing suitability. Physicians were aware that their decisions were often influenced by factors other than medical necessity. Economic influences were perceived as limited but not negligible. Decisions to forgo treatment could be influenced by the need to admit other patients.

The longer patients are in hospital before Intensive Care admission the higher their mortality

OBJECTIVE

To explore the relationship between hospital mortality and time spent by patients on hospital wards before admission to the intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN

Observational study of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

Participating intensive care units within the North East Thames Regional Database.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients, 7,190, admitted to ICU from the hospital wards of 24 hospitals.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Of ICU admissions from the wards, 40.1% were in hospital for more than 3 days and 11.7% for more than 15 days. ICU patients who died in hospital were in-patients longer (p=0.001) before admission (median 3 days; interquartile range 1-9) than those discharged alive (median 2 days; interquartile range 1-5). Hospital mortality increased significantly (p<0.0001) in relation to time on hospital wards before ICU: 47.1% (standardised mortality ratio 1.09) for patients in hospital 0-3 days before ICU admission up to 67.2% (standardised mortality ratio 1.39) for patients on the wards for more than 15 days before ICU. Length of stay before ICU admission was an independent predictor of hospital mortality (odds ratio per day 1.019; 95% confidence interval 1.014-1.024). There were significant differences (p<0.001) in patient age, APACHE II score and predicted mortality in relation to time on wards before ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality was high among patients admitted from the wards to ICU; many were inpatients for days or weeks before admission. The longer these patients were in hospital before ICU admission, the higher their mortality. Patients with delayed admission differed in some respects compared to those admitted earlier.