Understanding Goals of Care Statements and Preferences among Patients and Their Surrogates in the Medical ICU

More than one in three proxies do not know their loved one's current code status: An observational study in a Maryland ICU

Rationale

The majority of ICU patients lack decision-making capacity at some point during their ICU stay. However the extent to which proxy decision-makers are engaged in decisions about their patient’s care is challenging to quantify.

Objectives

To assess 1)whether proxies know their patient’s actual code status as recorded in the electronic medical record (EMR), and 2)whether code status orders reflect ICU patient preferences as reported by proxy decision-makers.

Methods

We enrolled proxy decision-makers for 96 days starting January 4, 2016. Proxies were asked about the patient’s goals of care, preferred code status, and actual code status. Responses were compared to code status orders in the EMR at the time of interview. Characteristics of patients and proxies who correctly vs incorrectly identified actual code status were compared, as were characteristics of proxies who reported a preferred code status that did vs did not match actual code status.

Measurements and main results

Among 111 proxies, 42 (38%) were incorrect or unsure about the patient’s actual code status and those who were correct vs. incorrect or unsure were similar in age, race, and years of education (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Twenty-nine percent reported a preferred code status that did not match the patient’s code status in the EMR. Matching preferred and actual code status was not associated with a patient’s age, gender, income, admission diagnosis, or subsequent in-hospital mortality or with proxy age, gender, race, education level, or relation to the patient (P>0.20 for all comparisons).

Conclusions

More than 1 in 3 proxies is incorrect or unsure about their patient’s actual code status and more than 1 in 4 proxies reported that a preferred code status that did not match orders in the EMR. Proxy age, race, gender and education level were not associated with correctly identifying code status or code status concordance.

Inter-Rater Agreement of Intensivists Evaluating the Goal Concordance of Preference-Sensitive ICU Interventions

CONTEXT

Goal-concordant care has been identified as an important outcome of advance care planning and shared decision-making initiatives. However, validated methods for measuring goal concordance are needed.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the inter-rater reliability of senior critical care fellows rating the goal concordance of preference-sensitive interventions performed in intensive care units (ICUs) while considering patient-specific circumstances as described in a previously proposed methodology.

METHODS

We identified ICU patients receiving preference-sensitive interventions in three adult ICUs at Johns Hopkins Hospital. A simulated cohort was created by randomly assigning each patient one of 10 sets of goals and preferences about limiting life support. Critical care fellows then independently reviewed patient charts and answered two questions: 1) Is this patient's goal achievable? and 2) Will performing this intervention help achieve the patient's goal? When the answer to both questions was yes, the intervention was rated as goal concordant. Inter-rater agreement was summarized by estimating intraclass correlation coefficient using mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Six raters reviewed the charts of 201 patients. Interventions were rated as goal concordant 22%-92% of the time depending on the patient's goal-limitation combination. Percent agreement between pairs of raters ranged from 59% to 86%. The intraclass correlation coefficient for ratings of goal concordance was 0.50 (95% CI 0.31-0.69) and was robust to patient age, gender, ICU, severity of illness, and lengths of stay.

CONCLUSION

Inter-rater agreement between intensivists using a standardized methodology to evaluate the goal concordance of preference-sensitive ICU interventions was moderate. Further testing is needed before this methodology can be recommended as a clinical research outcome.

A Descriptive Analysis of End-of-Life Conversations With Long-Term Glioblastoma Survivors

BACKGROUND

Early, high-quality serious illness (SI) conversations are critical for patients with glioblastoma (GBM) but are often mistimed or mishandled.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prevalence, timing, and quality of documented SI conversations and evaluate their focus on patient goals/priorities.

DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-three patients with GBM enrolled in the control group of a randomized controlled trial of a communication intervention and were followed for 2 years or until death. At baseline, all patients answered a validated question about preferences for life-extending versus comfort-focused care and completed a Life Priorities Survey about their goals/priorities. In this secondary analysis, retrospective chart review was performed for 18 patients with GBM who died. Documented SI conversations were systematically identified and evaluated using a codebook reflecting 4 domains: prognosis, goals/priorities, end-of-life planning, and life-sustaining treatments. Patient goals/priorities were compared to documentation.

MEASUREMENTS/RESULTS

At baseline, 16 of 24 patients preferred life-extending care. In the Life Priorities Survey, goals/priorities most frequently ranked among the top 3 were "Live as long as possible," "Be mentally aware," "Provide support for family," "Be independent," and "Be at peace." Fifteen of 18 patients had at least 1 documented SI conversation (range: 1-4). Median timing of the first documented SI conversation was 84 days before death (range: 29-231; interquartile range: 46-119). Fifteen patients had documentation about end-of-life planning, with "hospice" and "palliative care" most frequently documented. Five of 18 patients had documentation about their goals.

CONCLUSION

Patients with GBM had multiple goals/priorities with potential treatment implications, but documentation showed SI conversations occurred relatively late and infrequently reflected patient goals/priorities.

Goals of care: a concept clarification

AIM

To report an analysis and clarification of the concept of goals of care.

BACKGROUND

Goals of care have been used by healthcare providers since 1978, but no operationalized, consensual definition exists.

DESIGN

Norris's method of concept clarification was used to create an operational definition, conceptual model and testable hypotheses of goals of care from the healthcare provider's perspective.

DATA SOURCES

Data came from current research reports, interviews with experts and web sites of professional organizations. Research reports were published between 2003-2013.

METHODS

Antecedents, definitions and consequences were systematized and organized into coherent and more abstract groups to define goals of care. A conceptual model and testable hypotheses were created from this process.

RESULTS

Goals of care are desired health expectations that are formulated through the thoughtful interaction between a human being seeking medical care and the healthcare team in the healthcare system and are appropriate, agreed on, documented and communicated.

CONCLUSIONS

Development of clear goals of care can increase patient satisfaction and quality of care while decreasing costs, hospital length of stay and hospital readmission. Goals of care are dynamic and should be reassessed regularly. How and when goals of care transition from implicit to explicit should be explored further, and what prompts this transition. Nurses, physicians and healthcare providers need education on how to best fill their roles in the development of goals of care.

Comparison of Goals of Care Between Hemodialysis Patients and Their Health Care Providers: A Survey

Background:

Patient-centered care requires knowledge of patients’ goals of care (GoC) on the part of health care providers (HCPs). Whether HCPs caring for in-center hemodialysis patients meet this criterion is uncertain.

Objective:

We designed and conducted a GoC survey among patients and HCPs within a single in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) program to determine whether HCPs have an understanding of their patients’ GoC.

Design:

This was a prospective comparative quantitative survey study.

Setting:

The study included a single Canadian maintenance ICHD center.

Participants:

These included hemodialysis patients and their primary nephrologists, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and dietitians.

Methods and Measurements:

Two surveys, one for patients and another for primary HCPs, were designed, piloted, and administered. For each participating patient, HCPs consisted of the primary nephrologist, nurse, social worker, pharmacist, and dietitian. Surveys included questions pertaining to 7 GoC themes. Patient-HCP agreement on the importance of each domain individually and the most important domain overall was assessed with kappa statistics. Factors influencing agreement were assessed with logistic regression in a secondary analysis.

Results:

A total of 173 patients were invited to participate, of whom 137 (79%) completed surveys. Fifty HCPs completed 623 corresponding surveys: 132 by physicians, 112 by nurses, 126 by pharmacists, 127 by social workers, and 126 by dietitians. A total of 70.1% and 78.8% of patients agreed with the importance of and would feel comfortable having GoC discussions, respectively, with their HCPs; 42.7% of physicians reported not having provided prognostic information to the corresponding patient. Patient-HCP agreement regarding GoC was poor (all κ < .25, all P values > .05). In adjusted analyses, only patients choosing “Be Cured” as the most important GoC was significantly associated with poorer HCP-patient agreement than expected (odds ratio, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.18).

Limitations:

This is a single-center study involving only ICHD patients.

Conclusions:

HCP perceptions of GoC did not agree with patients’ reported GoC. This study suggests the need for the design and validation of interventions to improve HCPs’ understanding of their patients’ GoC.

Aligning critical care interventions with patient goals: A modified Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a list of non-emergent, potentially harmful interventions commonly performed in ICUs that require a clear understanding of patients' treatment goals.

BACKGROUND

A 2016 policy statement from the American Thoracic Society and American College of Critical Care Medicine calls on intensivists to engage in shared decision-making when "making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences."

METHODS

A three-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted via a panel of 6 critical care physicians, 6 ICU nurses, 6 former ICU patients, and 6 family members from 6 academic and community-based medical institutions in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region.

RESULTS

Recommendations about 8 interventions achieved consensus among respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and patient/family participants in a modified Delphi consensus process were able to identify preference-sensitive decisions that should trigger clinicians to clarify patient goals and consider initiating shared decision-making.

How often are hospitalized patients and providers on the same page with regard to the patient's primary recovery goal for hospitalization?

BACKGROUND

To deliver high-quality, patient-centered care during hospitalization, healthcare providers must correctly identify the patient's primary recovery goal.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the degree of concordance between patients and key hospital providers.

DESIGN

A validated questionnaire administered to a random sample of hospitalized patients alongside their nurse and physician provider. Goals included: "be cured," "live longer," "improve/maintain health," "be comfortable," "accomplish a particular life goal," or "other."

SETTING

Major academic hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients admitted for more than 48 hours from November 2013 to May 2014 were eligible. When a patient was incapacitated, a legal proxy was interviewed. The nurse and physician provider were then interviewed within 24 hours.

MEASUREMENTS

Frequencies of responses for each recovery goal and the rate of concordance among the patient, nurse, and physician provider were measured. The frequency of responses across groups were compared using adjusted χ(2) analyses. Inter-rater agreement was measured using 2-way Kappa tests.

RESULTS

All 3 participants were interviewed in 109 of the 181 (60.2%) patients approached (or with proxy available). Significant differences in selected goals were observed across respondent groups (P < 0.001). Patients frequently chose "be cured" (46.8%). Nurses and physician providers frequently selected "improve or maintain health" (38.5% and 46.8%, respectively). All 3 participants selected the same goal in 22 cases (20.2%). Inter-rater agreement was poor to slight for all pairs (kappa 0.09 [-0.03-0.19], 0.19 [0.08-0.30], and 0.20 [0.08-0.32] for patient-physician, patient-nurse, and nurse-physician, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed poor to slight concordance among hospitalized patients and key medical team members with regard to the patient's primary recovery goal. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:615-619. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Assessing the impact of palliative care in the intensive care unit through the lens of patient-centered outcomes research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Professional organizations, consensus groups, and stakeholders are calling for better palliative care in acute care settings, particularly in ICUs. Our ability to deliver that care is dependent on the outcomes associated with palliative care in the ICU. This review provides a conceptual framework for these outcomes, discusses current and future challenges for work in this field, and advocates for better use of patient-centered outcomes in future studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Previous studies of palliative care interventions in the ICU have used heterogeneous outcomes, conceptualized as: systems-related, content-related, clinician-related, or patient/family-related. Few outcomes were used in multiple studies and many studies had insufficient power and questionable generalizability and impact. Although nearly all previous studies incorporated family-related outcomes, not one incorporated patient-centered outcomes, such as health-related quality of life, patient symptom score, or consensus between patient goals and care provided.

SUMMARY

Delivery of palliative care in the ICU will be hampered until studies incorporate outcomes that are: responsive to and reflective of variations in care, and multi-faceted (with patient-centered components) to reflect the multi-dimensional nature of palliative care and the varied needs of different stakeholders.