Goals of Care: Understanding the Outcomes that Matter Most

Understanding the provision of goal-concordant care in the intensive care unit: A sequential two-phase qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Goal-concordant care in intensive care is care that aligns with the patient's expressed goals, values, preferences and beliefs. Communication and shared decision-making are key to ensuring goal-concordant care.

AIMS

The aims of his study were to explore (i) critical care clinicians' perspectives on how patient goals of care were communicated between clinicians, patients, and family in the intensive care unit; (ii) critical care nurses' role in this process; and (iii) how goals of care were used to guide care.

METHOD

Sequential two-phase qualitative descriptive design. Data were collected from February to June 2022 in a level-3 intensive care unit in a private hospital in Melbourne, Australia. In Phase One, individual interviews were conducted with critical care nurse participants (n = 11). In Phase Two, the findings were presented to senior clinical leaders (n = 2) to build a more comprehensive understanding. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's six step reflexive thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

There was poor consensus on the term 'goals of care', with some participants referring to daily treatment goals or treatment limitations and others to patients' wishes and expectations beyond the ICU. Critical care nurses perceived themselves as information brokers and patient advocates responsible for ensuring patient goals of care were respected, but engaging in goals-of-care conversations was challenging. A lack of role clarity, poor team communication, and inadequate processes to communicate patient goals impeded goal-concordant care. Senior clinical leaders affirmed these views, emphasising the need to utilise critical care nurses' insight for practical solutions to improve patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Clarity in both, the term 'goals of care' and the critical care nurses' role in these conversations, are the essential first steps to ensuring patients' values, preferences, and beliefs to guide shared-decision-making and goal-concordant care. Improved verbal and written communication that is inclusive of all members of the treating team is key to addressing these issues.

Advance care planning and goals of care discussion: the perspectives of Brazilian oncologists

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) and goals of care discussions are important instruments that enable respect for patient autonomy, especially in patients with a life-threatening disease, such as cancer. Despite their well-established benefits, ACP and goals of care discussions are still not frequently performed in clinical oncology practice. Understanding the barriers to this topic is the first step toward developing future interventions that are more likely to improve professional practice and patient satisfaction with care.

AIM

To explore Brazilian oncologists' barriers to discuss goals of care and advance care planning.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was developed to identify Brazilian oncologists' barriers to discussing goals of care and ACP. The Decide-Oncology questionnaire was used to identify the importance of these barriers according to oncologists' perceptions. Participants were asked to rank the importance of various barriers to discussing goals of care, ranging from 1 (extremely unimportant) to 7 (extremely important). A quantitative analysis using descriptive statistics was used, including median and interquartile intervals and a qualitative analysis based on Bardin content analysis of the two open questions.

RESULTS

Sixty-six oncologists participated in this study. Most of them perceived the patient and family's related barriers as the most important, such as patients' difficulty in understanding their diagnosis and accepting their prognosis. Physician and external related factors, such as lack of training and lack of time for this conversation, were also described as important barriers. Participants with formal training regarding goals of care communication and with experience in palliative care perceived the lack of patients' advanced directives as a significant barrier and manifested more willingness to participate in decision-making about goals of care. The lack of access and of support for referral to palliative care was also considered a significant barrier for ACP and goals of care discussion.

CONCLUSION

The identification of barriers that limit the discussion of ACP and early palliative care referrals can certainly help to prioritise the next steps for future studies aimed at improving ACP and helping clinicians to better support patients through shared decision-making based on the patient's values and experiences.

Critical decisions in the trauma intensive care unit: Are we practicing primary palliative care?

BACKGROUND

Devastating injuries require both urgent assessment by a trauma service and early attention to patients' goals of care (GOC). American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) guidelines recommend an initial palliative assessment within 24 hours of admission and family meeting, if needed, within 72 hours. We hypothesize that a primary palliative care-based practice improves adherence to TQIP guidelines in trauma patients.

METHODS

All adult trauma patients who died while inpatient from January 2014 to December 2018 were reviewed. Timing of GOC discussions, transition to comfort measures only (CMO), and the utilization of specialty palliative services were analyzed with univariate analysis.

RESULTS

During the study period, 415 inpatients died. Median Injury Severity Score was 26 (interquartile range [IQR], 17-34), median age was 67 years (IQR, 51-81 years), and 72% (n = 299) transitioned to CMO before death. Documented GOC discussions increased from 77% of patients in 2014 to 95% of patients in 2018 (p < 0.001), and in 2018, the median time to the first GOC discussion was 15 hours (IQR, 7- 24 hours). Specialty palliative care was consulted in 7% of all patients. Of patients who had at least one GOC discussion, 98% were led by the trauma intensive care unit (TICU) team. Median time from admission to first GOC discussion was 27 hours (IQR, 6-91 hours). Median number of GOC discussions was 1 (IQR, 1-2). Median time to CMO after the final GOC discussion was 0 hours (IQR, 0-3). Median time to death after transition to CMO was 4 hours (IQR, 1-18 hours).

CONCLUSION

Of those who died during index admission, we demonstrated significant improvement in adherence to American College of Surgeons TQIP palliative guidelines across the 5-year study period, with the TICU team guiding the majority of GOC discussions. Our TICU team has developed an effective primary palliative care approach, selectively consulting specialty palliative care only when needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level III.