Being CAREFuL about improving end-of-life care in hospitals

An Approach to Caring for Patients and Family of Patients Dying in the ICU

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

Death is common in the ICU and often occurs after a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies. Care of the dying is a core skill for ICU clinicians, requiring expert communication, primarily with family of critically ill patients.

REVIEW FINDINGS

Limited high-quality evidence supports specific practices related to the care of dying patients in the ICU; thus, many of the recommendations that exist are based on expert opinion. Value exists in sharing a practical approach to caring for patients during the dying process, including topics to be addressed with family members, rationales for recommended care, and strategies for implementing comfort measures only. Through dedicated preparation and planning, clinicians can help family members navigate this intense experience.

SUMMARY

After a decision had been made to discontinue life-sustaining therapies, family members need to be given a clear description of comfort measures only and provided with additional detail about what it entails, including therapies or interventions to be discontinued, monitoring during the dying process, and common features of the dying process. Order sets can be a valuable resource for ensuring that adequate analgesia and sedation are available and the care plan is enacted properly. To achieve a good death for patients, a collaborative effort among members of the care team is essential.

Variation in end-of-life care and hospital palliative care among hospitals and local authorities: A preliminary contribution of big data

BACKGROUND

Many studies explore the clinical and ethical dimensions of care at the end-of-life, but fewer use administrative data to examine individual and geographic differences, including the use of palliative care.

AIM

Provide a population-based perspective on end-of-life and hospital palliative care among local authorities and hospitals in France.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of care received by 17,928 decedents 65 and over (last 6 months of life), using the French national health insurance database.

RESULTS

55.7% of decedents died in acute-care hospitals; 79% were hospitalized in them at least once; 11.7% were admitted at least once for hospital palliative care. Among 31 academic medical centers, intensive care unit admissions ranged from 12% to 67.4%; hospital palliative care admissions, from 2% to 30.6%. Across local authorities, for intensive care unit days and hospital palliative care admissions, the ratios between the values at the third and the first quartile were 2.4 and 1.5. The odds of admission for hospital palliative care or to an intensive care unit for more than 7 days were more than twice as high among people ⩽85 years (aOR = 2.11 (1.84-2.43) and aOR = 2.59 (2.12-3.17), respectively). The odds of admission for hospital palliative care were about 25% lower (p = 0.04) among decedents living in local authorities with the lowest levels of education than those with the highest levels.

CONCLUSION

The variation we document in end-of-life and hospital palliative care across different categories of hospitals and 95 local authorities raises important questions as to what constitutes appropriate hospital use and intensity at the end-of-life.

International transfer and translation of an end of life care intervention: the case of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient

We explore how and why the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) for the dying patient was transferred to 20 countries beyond the UK, and with what consequences for policy and practice. Our paper synthesises findings from 95 publications contained in a historical narrative literature review on the implementation of the LCP outside the United Kingdom, alongside data from 18 qualitative interviews with 19 key actors involved with the LCP in 14 countries. We use the review to explore the timelines and patterns of development and implementation in the specific countries, to consider what forms of research and evaluation about the LCP were undertaken to establish its effectiveness, and to summarise the resulting findings and their consequences. We use the interviews to gain insights into the elements, processes and dynamics that shaped the transfer and translation of the LCP from one location to another, across national boundaries. Using six questions from the policy transfer literature we then explain who were the key actors involved; what was transferred; from where lessons were drawn; the different degrees of transfer that took place; what restricted or facilitated transfer; and how transfer was related to 'success' or 'failure'. We conclude that the spread of the LCP took place mostly in prosperous countries, and was sustained over around 15 years.  It took in differing geographies and cultures, and a variety of linguistic, policy and practice contexts. If it did not succeed in a wider transformational goal, it appears to have been well received and perceived as beneficial in many contexts, largely avoiding accusations of mis-use and harm that had occurred in the UK, and in some cases fostering a sustained international collaboration and ongoing use of local variants, even after withdrawal in its country of origin in 2014.

A randomised controlled trial of an advance care planning intervention for patients with incurable cancer

BACKGROUND

We modified and evaluated an advance care planning (ACP) intervention, which had been shown to improve compliance with patient's end of life (EoL) wishes, in a different patient population.

METHODS

Patients with incurable cancer, and a Family Member (FM), were randomised one-to-one to usual care or usual care plus an ACP intervention, between April 2014 and January 2017. Oncologists and participants were non-blinded. ACP was based on the Respecting Patient Choices model, with an offer to provide individualised ranges for typical, best-case and worst-case scenarios for survival time. Seven facilitators (two oncology nurses, two nurses and three allied health professionals) delivered the intervention within 2 weeks of study enrolment. The primary outcome measure, assessed by interviewing the FM 3 months after patient death, was the FM perception that the patient's wishes were discussed, and met.

RESULTS

Six hundred and sixty-five patients from seven Australian metropolitan oncology centres were referred for consideration by their oncologists, 444 (67%) met the study inclusion criteria and were approached by a study researcher. Two hundred and eight patients (47%) and their FM entered the trial as dyads. Fifty-three (46%) dyads in the ACP group and 63 (54%) dyads in the usual-care group had complete primary outcome data (p = 0.16). Seventy-nine patients and 53 FMs attended an ACP discussion. Mean length of discussion was 57 min. FMs from 23 (43%) dyads allocated to ACP and 21 (33%) dyads allocated usual care reported the patient's EoL wishes were discussed and met (difference 10%, 95% CI: -2 to 8, p = 0.27). There were no differences in EoL care received, patient satisfaction with care; FM satisfaction with care or with death; or FM well being. Rates of palliative care referral were high in both groups (97% vs 96%).

CONCLUSIONS

A formal ACP intervention did not increase the likelihood that EoL care was consistent with patients' preferences.