Pragmatic methods to avoid intensive care unit admission when it does not align with patient and family goals

Palliative Care Consultation and Family-Centered Outcomes in Patients With Unplanned Intensive Care Unit Admissions

Context: Hospitalized patients who experience unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions face significant challenges, and their family members have unique palliative care needs. Objectives: To identify predictors of palliative care consultation among hospitalized patients with unplanned ICU admissions and to examine the association between palliative care consultation and family outcomes. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients with unplanned ICU admissions at two medical centers in Seattle, WA. This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Washington (STUDY00008182). Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between patient characteristics and palliative care consultation. Family members completed surveys assessing psychological distress within 90 days of patient discharge. Adjusted ordinal probit or binary logistic regression models were used to identify associations between palliative care consultation and family symptoms of psychological distress. Results: In our cohort (n = 413 patients and 272 family members), palliative care was consulted for 24% of patients during hospitalization (n = 100), with the majority (93%) of these consultations occurring after ICU admission. Factors associated with palliative care consultation after ICU transfer included enrollment site (OR, 2.29; 95% CI: 1.17-4.50), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at ICU admission (OR, 1.12; 95% CI: 1.05-1.19), and reason for hospital admission (kidney dysfunction [OR, 7.02; 95% CI: 1.08-45.69]). There was no significant difference in family symptoms of depression or posttraumatic stress based on palliative care consultation status. Conclusions: For patients experiencing unplanned ICU admission, palliative care consultation often happened after transfer and was associated with illness severity, comorbid illness, and hospital site. Patient death was associated with family symptoms of psychological distress.

Hospital Culture and Intensity of End-of-Life Care at 3 Academic Medical Centers

Importance

There is substantial institutional variability in the intensity of end-of-life care that is not explained by patient preferences. Hospital culture and institutional structures (eg, policies, practices, protocols, resources) might contribute to potentially nonbeneficial high-intensity life-sustaining treatments near the end of life.

Objective

To understand the role of hospital culture in the everyday dynamics of high-intensity end-of-life care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This comparative ethnographic study was conducted at 3 academic hospitals in California and Washington that differed in end-of-life care intensity based on measures in the Dartmouth Atlas and included hospital-based clinicians, administrators, and leaders. Data were deductively and inductively analyzed using thematic analysis through an iterative coding process.

Main Outcome and Measure

Institution-specific policies, practices, protocols, and resources and their role in the everyday dynamics of potentially nonbeneficial, high-intensity life-sustaining treatments.

Results

A total of 113 semistructured, in-depth interviews (66 women [58.4%]; 23 [20.4%] Asian, 1 [0.9%] Black, 5 [4.4%] Hispanic, 7 [6.2%] multiracial, and 70 [61.9%] White individuals) were conducted with inpatient-based clinicians and administrators between December 2018 and June 2022. Respondents at all hospitals described default tendencies to provide high-intensity treatments that they believed were universal in US hospitals. They also reported that proactive, concerted efforts among multiple care teams were required to deescalate high-intensity treatments. Efforts to deescalate were vulnerable to being undermined at multiple points during a patient's care trajectory by any individual or entity. Respondents described institution-specific policies, practices, protocols, and resources that engendered broadly held understandings of the importance of deescalating nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments. Respondents at different hospitals reported different policies and practices that encouraged or discouraged deescalation. They described how these institutional structures contributed to the culture and everyday dynamics of end-of-life care at their institution.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study, clinicians, administrators, and leaders at the hospitals studied reported that they work in a hospital culture in which high-intensity end-of-life care constitutes a default trajectory. Institutional structures and hospital cultures shape the everyday dynamics by which clinicians may deescalate end-of-life patients from this trajectory. Individual behaviors or interactions may fail to mitigate potentially nonbeneficial high-intensity life-sustaining treatments if extant hospital culture or a lack of supportive policies and practices undermine individual efforts. Hospital cultures need to be considered when developing policies and interventions to decrease potentially nonbeneficial, high-intensity life-sustaining treatments.

Giving a voice to patients at high risk of dying in the intensive care unit: a multiple source approach

PURPOSE

Data are scarce regarding the experience of critically ill patients at high risk of death. Identifying their concerns could allow clinicians to better meet their needs and align their end-of-life trajectory with their preferences and values. We aimed to identify concerns expressed by conscious patients at high risk of dying in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Multiple source multicentre study. Concerns expressed by patients were collected from five different sources (literature review, panel of 50 ICU experts, prospective study in 11 ICUs, in-depth interviews with 17 families and 15 patients). All qualitative data collected were analyzed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

The five sources produced 1307 concerns that were divided into 7 domains and 41 sub-domains. After removing redundant items and duplicates, and combining and reformulating similar items, 28 concerns were extracted from the analysis of the data. To increase accuracy, they were merged and consolidated, and resulted in a final list of 15 concerns pertaining to seven domains: concerns about loved-ones; symptom management and care (including team competence, goals of care discussions); spiritual, religious, and existential preoccupations (including regrets, meaning, hope and trust); being oneself (including fear of isolation and of being a burden, absence of hope, and personhood); the need for comforting experiences and pleasure; dying and death (covering emotional and practical concerns); and after death preoccupations.

CONCLUSION

This list of 15 concerns may prove valuable for clinicians as a tool for improving communication and support to better meet the needs of patients at high risk of dying.

Differences in Characteristics, Hospital Care, and Outcomes between Acute Critically Ill Emergency Department Patients Receiving Palliative Care and Usual Care

Background: The early integration of palliative care in the emergency department (ED-PC) provides several benefits, including improved quality of life with optimal comfort measures, and symptom control. Whether palliative care could affect the intensive care unit admissions, hospital care and resource utilization requires further investigation. Aim: To determine the differences in inpatient characteristics, hospital care, survival, and resource utilization between patients receiving palliative care (ED-PC) and usual care (UC). Design: Retrospective observational study. Setting/participants: We enrolled consecutive, acute, critically ill patients admitted to the emergency intensive care unit at Taipei Veterans General Hospital from 1 February 2018 to 31 January 2020. Results: A total of 1273 patients were evaluated for unmet palliative care needs; 685 patients received ED-PC and 588 received UC. The palliative care patients were more severely frail (AOR 2.217 (1.295–3.797), p = 0.004), had functional deterioration with three ADLs (AOR 1.348 (1.040–1.748), p = 0.024), biopsychosocial discomfort (AOR 1.696 (1.315–2.187), p < 0.001), higher Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale 1 (p = 0.024), higher in-hospital mortality (AOR 1.983 (1.540–2.555), p < 0.001), were four times more likely to sign an DNR (AOR 4.536 (2.522–8.158), p < 0.001), and were twice as likely to sign an DNR at admission (AOR 2.1331.619–2.811), p < 0.001). Palliative care patients received less epinephrine (AOR 0.424 (0.265–0.678), p < 0.001), more frequent withdrawal of an endotracheal tube (AOR 8.780 (1.122–68.720), p = 0.038), and more narcotics (AOR1.675 (1.132–2.477), p = 0.010). Palliative care patients exhibited lower 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day survival rates (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (21.2 ± 26.6 vs. 21.7 ± 20.6, p = 0.709) nor total hospital expenses (293,169 ± 350,043 vs. 294,161 ± 315,275, p = 0.958). Conclusion: Acute critically ill patients receiving palliative care were more frail, more critical, and had higher in-hospital mortality. Palliative care patients received less epinephrine, more endotracheal extubation, and more narcotics. There was no difference in the hospital LOS or hospital costs between the palliative and usual care groups. The synthesis of ED-PC is new but achievable with potential benefits to align care with patient goals.

Clinicians' Perspectives After Implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program: A Qualitative Study

IMPORTANCE

Discussions about goals of care with patients who are seriously ill typically occur infrequently and late in the illness trajectory, are of low quality, and focus narrowly on the patient's resuscitation preferences (ie, code status), risking provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted communication intervention that builds capacity for clinicians to have earlier, more frequent, and more person-centered conversations.

OBJECTIVE

To explore clinicians' experiences with the SICP 1 year after implementation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. The SICP was implemented at Hamilton General Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) from March 1, 2017, to January 19, 2018, and at Foothills Medical Centre (Calgary, Alberta) from March 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. A total of 45 clinicians were invited to participate in the study, and 23 clinicians (51.1%) were enrolled and interviewed. Semistructured interviews of clinicians were conducted between August 2018 and May 2019. Content analysis was used to evaluate information obtained from these interviews between May 2019 and May 2020.

EXPOSURES

The SICP includes clinician training, communication tools, and processes for system change.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of the SICP.

RESULTS

Among 23 clinicians interviewed, 15 (65.2%) were women. The mean (SD) number of years in practice was 14.6 (9.1) at the Hamilton site and 12.0 (6.9) at the Calgary site. Participants included 19 general internists, 3 nurse practitioners, and 1 social worker. The 3 main themes were the ways in which the SICP (1) supported changes in clinician behavior, (2) shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status, and (3) influenced clinicians personally and professionally. Changes in clinician behavior were supported by having a unit champion, interprofessional engagement, access to copies of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, and documentation in the electronic medical record. Elements of the program, especially the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status and influenced clinicians on personal and professional levels. Concerns with the program included finding time to have conversations, building transient relationships, and limiting conversation fluidity.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, hospital clinicians described components of the SICP as supporting changes in their behavior and facilitating meaningful patient interactions that shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status. The perceived benefits of SICP implementation stimulated uptake within the medical units. These findings suggest that the SICP may prompt hospital culture changes in goals-of-care dialogue with patients and the care of hospitalized patients with serious illness.

Physicians' Views and Agreement about Patient- and Context-Related Factors Influencing ICU Admission Decisions: A Prospective Study

Background: Single patient- and context-related factors have been associated with admission decisions to intensive care. How physicians weigh various factors and integrate them into the decision-making process is not well known. Objectives: First, to determine which patient- and context-related factors influence admission decisions according to physicians, and their agreement about these determinants; and second, to examine whether there are differences for patients with and without advanced disease. Method: This study was conducted in one tertiary hospital. Consecutive ICU consultations for medical inpatients were prospectively included. Involved physicians, i.e., internists and intensivists, rated the importance of 13 factors for each decision on a Likert scale (1 = negligible to 5 = predominant). We cross-tabulated these factors by presence or absence of advanced disease and examined the degree of agreement between internists and intensivists using the kappa statistic. Results: Of 201 evaluated patients, 105 (52.2%) had an advanced disease, and 140 (69.7%) were admitted to intensive care. The mean number of important factors per decision was 3.5 (SD 2.4) for intensivists and 4.4 (SD 2.1) for internists. Patient’s comorbidities, quality of life, preferences, and code status were most often mentioned. Inter-rater agreement was low for the whole population and after stratifying for patients with and without advanced disease. Kappa values ranged from 0.02 to 0.34 for all the patients, from −0.05 to 0.42 for patients with advanced disease, and from −0.08 to 0.32 for patients without advanced disease. The best agreement was found for family preferences. Conclusion: Poor agreement between physicians about patient- and context-related determinants of ICU admission suggests a lack of explicitness during the decision-making process. The potential consequences are increased variability and inequity regarding which patients are admitted. Timely advance care planning involving families could help physicians make the decision most concordant with patient preferences.

Evaluation of Time-Limited Trials Among Critically Ill Patients With Advanced Medical Illnesses and Reduction of Nonbeneficial ICU Treatments

IMPORTANCE

For critically ill patients with advanced medical illnesses and poor prognoses, overuse of invasive intensive care unit (ICU) treatments may prolong suffering without benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether use of time-limited trials (TLTs) as the default care-planning approach for critically ill patients with advanced medical illnesses was associated with decreased duration and intensity of nonbeneficial ICU care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective quality improvement study was conducted from June 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, at the medical ICUs of 3 academic public hospitals in California. Patients at risk for nonbeneficial ICU treatments due to advanced medical illnesses were identified using categories from the Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines for admission and triage.

INTERVENTIONS

Clinicians were trained to use TLTs as the default communication and care-planning approach in meetings with family and surrogate decision makers.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality of family meetings (process measure) and ICU length of stay (clinical outcome measure).

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients were included (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [16.3] years; 127 men [60.8%]; 101 Hispanic patients [48.3%]), with 113 patients (54.1%) in the preintervention period and 96 patients (45.9%) in the postintervention period. Formal family meetings increased from 68 of 113 (60.2%) to 92 of 96 (95.8%) patients between the preintervention and postintervention periods (P < .01). Key components of family meetings, such as discussions of risks and benefits of ICU treatments (preintervention, 15 [34.9%] vs postintervention, 56 [94.9%]; P < .01), eliciting values and preferences of patients (20 [46.5%] vs 58 [98.3%]; P < .01), and identifying clinical markers of improvement (9 [20.9%] vs 52 [88.1%]; P < .01), were discussed more frequently after intervention. Median ICU length of stay was significantly reduced between preintervention and postintervention periods (8.7 [interquartile range (IQR), 5.7-18.3] days vs 7.4 [IQR, 5.2-11.5] days; P = .02). Hospital mortality was similar between the preintervention and postintervention periods (66 of 113 [58.4%] vs 56 of 96 [58.3%], respectively; P = .99). Invasive ICU procedures were used less frequently in the postintervention period (eg, mechanical ventilation preintervention, 97 [85.8%] vs postintervention, 70 [72.9%]; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, a quality improvement intervention that trained physicians to communicate and plan ICU care with family members of critically ill patients in the ICU using TLTs was associated with improved quality of family meetings and a reduced intensity and duration of ICU treatments. This study highlights a patient-centered approach for treating critically ill patients that may reduce nonbeneficial ICU care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04181294.

Physicians' predictions of long-term survival and functional outcomes do not influence the decision to admit patients with advanced disease to intensive care: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Long-term survival and functional outcomes should influence admission decisions to intensive care, especially for patients with advanced disease.

AIM

To determine whether physicians' predictions of long-term prognosis influenced admission decisions for patients with and without advanced disease.

DESIGN

A prospective study was conducted. Physicians estimated patient survival with intensive care and with care on the ward, and the probability of 4 long-term outcomes: leaving hospital alive, survival at 6 months, recovery of functional status, and recovery of cognitive status. Patient mortality at 28 days was recorded. We built multivariate logistic regression models using admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) as the dependent variable.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

ICU consultations for medical inpatients at a Swiss tertiary care hospital were included.

RESULTS

Of 201 evaluated patients, 105 (52.2%) had an advanced disease and 140 (69.7%) were admitted to the ICU. The probability of admission was strongly associated with the expected short-term survival benefit for patients with or without advanced disease. In contrast, the predicted likelihood that the patient would leave the hospital alive, would be alive 6 months later, would recover functional status, and would recover initial cognitive capacity was not associated with the decision to admit a patient to the ICU. Even for patients with advanced disease, none of these estimated outcomes influenced the admission decision.

CONCLUSIONS

ICU admissions of patients with advanced disease were determined by short-term survival benefit, and not by long-term prognosis. Advance care planning and developing decision-aid tools for triage could help limit potentially inappropriate admissions to intensive care.

Delivery of end-of-life care in an emergency department-based intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions near the end of life have been associated with worse quality of life and burdensome costs. Patients may not benefit from ICU admission if appropriate end-of-life care can be delivered elsewhere. The objective of this study was to descriptively analyze patients receiving end-of-life care in an emergency department (ED)-based ICU (ED-ICU).

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of patient outcomes and resource use in adult patients receiving end-of-life care in an ED-ICU. In 2015, an "End of Life" order set was created to standardize delivery of palliative therapies and comfort measures. We identified adult patients (>18 years) receiving end-of-life care in the ED-ICU from December 2015 to March 2020 whose clinicians used the end-of-life order set.

RESULTS

A total of 218 patients were included for analysis; 50.5% were female, and the median age was 73.6 years. The median ED-ICU length of stay was 13.3 hours (interquartile range, 7.4-20.6). Two patients (0.9%) were admitted to an inpatient ICU, 117 (53.7%) died in the ED-ICU, 77 (35.3%) were admitted to a non-intensive care inpatient service, and 22 (10.1%) were discharged from the ED-ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

An ED-ICU can be used for ED patients near the end of life. Only 0.9% were subsequently admitted to an ICU, and 10.1% were discharged from the ED-ICU. This practice may benefit patients and families by avoiding costly ICU admissions and benefit health systems by reducing ICU capacity strain.

Anesthesiologist to Patient Communication: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Many patients are admitted to the intensive care unit following surgery, and some of them will experience incomplete recovery. For patients in this situation, preoperative discussions regarding patient values and preferences may direct care decisions. Existing literature shows that it is uncommon for surgeons to have these conversations preoperatively; it is unclear whether anesthesia professionals engage with patients on this topic prior to surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on communication between patients and anesthesia professionals, with a focus on discussions related to postoperative critical care.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched using specific search criteria from January 1980 to April 2020. Studies describing encounters between patients and anesthesia professionals were selected, and data regarding study objectives, study design, methodology, measures, outcomes, patient characteristics, and clinical setting were extracted and collated. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.

FINDINGS

A total of 12 studies including 1284 individual patient encounters were eligible for inclusion in the review. These studies demonstrated that communication between patients and anesthesia professionals related to postoperative care is rare: only 2 studies reported communication regarding adverse postoperative events, and this communication behavior was reported in only 46 of 1284 consultations (3.6%) across all studies. Additional findings were that communication during these encounters is dominated by anesthetic planning and perioperative logistics, with variable discussion of perioperative risks vs benefits and infrequent elicitation of patient values and preferences. Some data suggest that patients wish to be involved in perioperative decision-making but are often limited by an incomplete understanding of risks and benefits.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review found that communication in anesthesia is dominated by anesthetic planning and discussion of preoperative logistics, whereas postoperative critical care is rarely discussed. Most patients who are admitted to an intensive care unit after a major operation will not have had a discussion regarding goals of care specific to protracted recovery or prolonged intensive care with their anesthesiologist.

Bereavement Support on the Frontline of COVID-19: Recommendations for Hospital Clinicians

Deaths due to COVID-19 are associated with risk factors which can lead to prolonged grief disorder, post-traumatic stress, and other poor bereavement outcomes among relatives, as well as moral injury and distress in frontline staff. Here we review relevant research evidence and provide evidence-based recommendations and resources for hospital clinicians to mitigate poor bereavement outcomes and support staff. For relatives, bereavement risk factors include dying in an intensive care unit, severe breathlessness, patient isolation or restricted access, significant patient and family emotional distress, and disruption to relatives' social support networks. Recommendations include advance care planning; proactive, sensitive, and regular communication with family members alongside accurate information provision; enabling family members to say goodbye in person where possible; supporting virtual communication; providing excellent symptom management and emotional and spiritual support; and providing and/or sign-posting to bereavement services. To mitigate effects of this emotionally challenging work on staff, we recommend an organizational and systemic approach which includes access to informal and professional support.

Clinician Perceptions of the Impact of a Shock Team Approach in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Designated cross-specialty shock teams have been proposed as a mechanism to manage the complexity of decision-making and facilitate collaborative, patient-centred care-planning in cardiogenic shock. Observational data support the notion that shock protocols and teams may improve survival, but there is an absence of data interrogating how clinicians engage with and value the shock team paradigm. This study sought to explore clinician perceptions of the value of the shock call system on decision making and the management of CGS.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A descriptive qualitative approach was used. A focus group, semi-structured interview was conducted with twelve cross-specialty members of a shock team at a single tertiary cardiac centre in the UK. The focus group was audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed to capture and describe the clinicians' experience and perceptions of shock team discussions.

RESULTS

Eight cardiac intensivists, two heart failure cardiologists, one cardiothoracic surgeon and one interventional cardiologist participated in the focus group. Four key themes were identified from the discussions: supportive decision making; team communication; governance and learning; and future directions.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the notion that cross-specialty, real-time patient discussion may provide added value beyond protocolised decision making and account for the complexities of managing patients in a field where definitive, high-quality evidence to guide practice is currently limited.

A systematic intervention to improve serious illness communication in primary care: Effect on expenses at the end of life

BACKGROUND

At a population level, conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients exploring patients' goals and values can drive high-value healthcare, improving patient outcomes and reducing spending.

METHODS

We examined the impact of a quality improvement intervention to drive better communication on total medical expenses in a high-risk care management program. We present our analysis of secondary expense outcomes from a prospective implementation trial of the Serious Illness Care Program, which includes clinician training, coaching, tools, and system interventions. We included patients who died between January 2014 and September 2016 who were selected for serious illness conversations, using the "Surprise Question," as part of implementation of the program in fourteen primary care clinics.

RESULTS

We evaluated 124 patients and observed no differences in total medical expenses between intervention and comparison clinic patients. When comparing patients in intervention clinics who did and did not have conversations, we observed lower average monthly expenses over the last 6 ($6297 vs. $8,876, p = 0.0363) and 3 months ($7263 vs. $11,406, p = 0.0237) of life for patients who had conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

Possible savings observed in this study are similar in magnitude to previous studies in advance care planning and specialty palliative care but occur earlier in the disease course and in the context of documented conversations and a comprehensive, interprofessional case management program.

IMPLICATIONS

Programs designed to drive more, earlier, and better serious illness communication hold the potential to reduce costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospectively designed trial, non-randomized sample, analysis of secondary outcomes.