Prehospital Frailty and Screening Criteria for Palliative Care Services in Critically Ill Older Adults: An Observational Cohort Study

Frailty Identification in Prehospital Care: A Scoping Review of the Literature

The proportion of older adults is increasing worldwide. Frailty assessment in prehospital care was suggested to improve triage decisions and paramedics' judgment. This study aimed to assess the scope and nature of available evidence around frailty identification in prehospital care. A systematic search of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINHAL, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles published from January 2022 downwards. A list of indexed terms and their associated alternatives were pre-determined. Of the 71 identified and reviewed articles after removing duplicates, six articles were included in the review. Due to the heterogeneity of the included articles, the findings were described narratively. The findings of this review showed that the available evidence is limited and heterogenic. Two themes emerged from the findings of the included articles: 1) Paramedics' Perceptions about Frailty Assessment in Prehospital Care and 2) Frailty Scores for Application in Prehospital Care. Paramedics recognised frailty assessment in pre-hospital care to be feasible and important. They highlighted the need for a simple and clear frailty score that could be used and mentioned to other healthcare professionals when handing over patients. Six frailty scores were reported to be used in prehospital care. The evidence around each frailty score is very limited. Overall, frailty assessment in prehospital care was shown to be important and feasible. Different frailty scores have been assessed for use in prehospital care. Further research investigating frailty identification in prehospital care is needed.

Derivation and performance of an end-of-life practice score aimed at interpreting worldwide treatment-limiting decisions in the critically ill

Background

Limitations of life-sustaining interventions in intensive care units (ICUs) exhibit substantial changes over time, and large, contemporary variation across world regions. We sought to determine whether a weighted end-of-life practice score can explain a large, contemporary, worldwide variation in limitation decisions.

Methods

The 2015–2016 (Ethicus-2) vs. 1999–2000 (Ethicus-1) comparison study was a two-period, prospective observational study assessing the frequency of limitation decisions in 4952 patients from 22 European ICUs. The worldwide Ethicus-2 study was a single-period prospective observational study assessing the frequency of limitation decisions in 12,200 patients from 199 ICUs situated in 8 world regions. Binary end-of-life practice variable data (1 = presence; 0 = absence) were collected post hoc (comparison study, 22/22 ICUs, n = 4592; worldwide study, 186/199 ICUs, n = 11,574) for family meetings, daily deliberation for appropriate level of care, end-of-life discussions during weekly meetings, written triggers for limitations, written ICU end-of-life guidelines and protocols, palliative care and ethics consultations, ICU-staff taking communication or bioethics courses, and national end-of-life guidelines and legislation. Regarding the comparison study, generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis was used to determine associations between the 12 end-of-life practice variables and treatment limitations. The weighted end-of-life practice score was then calculated using GEE-derived coefficients of the end-of-life practice variables. Subsequently, the weighted end-of-life practice score was validated in GEE analysis using the worldwide study dataset.

Results

In comparison study GEE analyses, end-of-life discussions during weekly meetings [odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30–0.99], end-of-life guidelines [OR 0.52, (0.31–0.87)] and protocols [OR 15.08, (3.88–58.59)], palliative care consultations [OR 2.63, (1.23–5.60)] and end-of-life legislation [OR 3.24, 1.60–6.55)] were significantly associated with limitation decisions (all P < 0.05). In worldwide GEE analyses, the weighted end-of-life practice score was significantly associated with limitation decisions [OR 1.12 (1.03–1.22); P = 0.008].

Conclusions

Comparison study-derived, weighted end-of-life practice score partly explained the worldwide study’s variation in treatment limitations. The most important components of the weighted end-of-life practice score were ICU end-of-life protocols, palliative care consultations, and country end-of-life legislation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-03971-9.

The PALliative MUlticenter Study in Intensive Care (PalMuSIC). Results From a Multicenter Study Addressing Frailty and Palliative Care Interventions in Intensive Care Units in Portugal

INTRODUCTION

Frailty is a clinically recognizable state of increased vulnerability common in critical medicine. When underrecognized, it may lead to invasive treatments that do not serve the patients' best interest. Our aim was to evaluate the use of both palliative care consultation and invasive interventions in frail patients admitted to Intensive Care Units in Portugal.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study. All consecutive adult patients admitted for more than 24 h, over a 15-day period were enrolled. Twenty-three Portuguese Intensive Care Units were included. Informed consent was obtained from all patients or their surrogate. The doctor and nurse in charge calculated the Clinical Frailty Score as well as the reference family member.

RESULTS

A total of 335 patients were included in the study (66% male). Mean age was 63.2 ± 16.8 and SAPS II score was 41.8 ± 17.4. Mean Clinical Frailty Score value was 3.5 ± 1.7. Frailty prevalence (mean score ≥ 5) was 20.9%. Frail patients were offered organ support therapy (64,3% invasive mechanical ventilation; 24,3% renal replacement therapy; 67,1% vasopressors) more often than non-frail patients. Nevertheless, limitation of therapeutic effort or a do not resuscitate order (p < 0.001) were more common in frail patients. Mortality rate by 6 months was higher among frail patients (50% vs. 32.3%, p < 0.001). Palliative Care was offered to only 15% of frail patients (3.9% overall).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors suggest that palliative care should be universally consulted once frailty is identified in critical patients.