Investigating the impact of brief training in decision-making on treatment escalation to intensive care using objective structured clinical examination-style scenarios

Background

The decision to admit patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) is complex. Structuring the decision-making process may be beneficial to patients and decision-makers alike. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and impact of a brief training intervention on ICU treatment escalation decisions using the Warwick model- a structured decision-making framework for treatment escalation decisions.

Methods

Treatment escalation decisions were assessed using Objective Structured Clinical Examination-style scenarios. Participants were ICU and anaesthetic registrars with experience of making ICU admission decisions. Participants completed one scenario, followed by training with the decision-making framework and subsequently a second scenario. Decision-making data was collected using checklists, note entries and post-scenario questionnaires.

Results

Twelve participants were enrolled. Brief decision-making training was successfully delivered during the normal ICU working day. Following training participants demonstrated greater evidence of balancing the burdens and benefits of treatment escalation. On visual analogue scales of 0-10, participants felt better trained to make treatment escalation decisions (4.9 vs 6.8, p = 0.017) and felt their decision-making was more structured (4.7 vs 8.1, p = 0.017).Overall, participants provided positive feedback and reported feeling more prepared for the task of making treatment escalation decisions.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that a brief training intervention is a feasible way to improve the decision-making process by improving decision-making structure, reasoning and documentation. Training was implemented successfully, acceptable to participants and participants were able to apply their learning. Further studies of regional and national cohorts are needed to determine if training benefit is sustained and generalisable.

Development of a model of medication review for use in clinical practice: Bristol medication review model

BACKGROUND

Medication review is a core aspect of medicine optimisation, yet existing models of review vary substantially in structure and content and are not necessarily easy to implement in clinical practice. This study aimed to use evidence from the existing literature to identify key medication review components and use this to inform the design of an improved review model.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42018109788) to identify randomised control trials of stand-alone medication review in adults (18+ years). The review updated that by Huiskes et al. (BMC Fam Pract. 18:5, 2017), using the same search strategy implemented in MEDLINE and Embase. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Key review components were identified, alongside relevant clinical and health service outcomes. A working group (patients, doctors and pharmacists) developed the model through an iterative consensus process (appraisal of documents plus group discussions), working from the systematic review findings, brief evidence summaries for core review components and examples of previous models, to agree on the main purpose of the review model, overarching model structure, review components and supporting material.

RESULTS

We identified 28 unique studies, with moderate bias overall. Consistent medication review components included reconciliation (26 studies), safety assessment (22), suboptimal treatment (19), patient knowledge/preferences (18), adherence (14), over-the-counter therapy (13) and drug monitoring (10). There was limited evidence from studies for improvement in key clinical outcomes. The review structure was underpinned by patient values and preferences, with parallel information gathering and evaluation stages, feeding into the final decision-making and implementation. Most key components identified in the literature were included. The final model was considered to benefit from a patient-centred, holistic approach, which captured both patient-orientated and medication-focused problems, and aligned with traditional consultation methods thus facilitating implementation in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The Bristol Medication Review Model provides a framework for standardised delivery of structured reviews. The model has the potential for use by all healthcare professionals with relevant clinical experience and is designed to offer flexibility of implementation not limited to a particular healthcare setting.

Decision-making around admission to intensive care in the UK pre-COVID-19: a multicentre ethnographic study

Predicting who will benefit from admission to an intensive care unit is not straightforward and admission processes vary. Our aim was to understand how decisions to admit or not are made. We observed 55 decision-making events in six NHS hospitals. We interviewed 30 referring and 43 intensive care doctors about these events. We describe the nature and context of the decision-making and analysed how doctors make intensive care admission decisions. Such decisions are complex with intrinsic uncertainty, often urgent and made with incomplete information. While doctors aspire to make patient-centred decisions, key challenges include: being overworked with lack of time; limited support from senior staff; and a lack of adequate staffing in other parts of the hospital that may be compromising patient safety. To reduce decision complexity, heuristic rules based on experience are often used to help think through the problem; for example, the patient's functional status or clinical gestalt. The intensive care doctors actively managed relationships with referring doctors; acted as the hospital generalist for acutely ill patients; and brought calm to crisis situations. However, they frequently failed to elicit values and preferences from patients or family members. They were rarely explicit in balancing burdens and benefits of intensive care for patients, so consistency and equity cannot be judged. The use of a framework for intensive care admission decisions that reminds doctors to seek patient or family views and encourages explicit balancing of burdens and benefits could improve decision-making. However, a supportive, adequately resourced context is also needed.

Developing an intervention around referral and admissions to intensive care: a mixed-methods study

Background

Intensive care treatment can be life-saving, but it is invasive and distressing for patients receiving it and it is not always successful. Deciding whether or not a patient will benefit from intensive care is a difficult clinical and ethical challenge.

Objectives

To explore the decision-making process for referral and admission to the intensive care unit and to develop and test an intervention to improve it.

Methods

A mixed-methods study comprising (1) two systematic reviews investigating the factors associated with decisions to admit patients to the intensive care unit and the experiences of clinicians, patients and families; (2) observation of decisions and interviews with intensive care unit doctors, referring doctors, and patients and families in six NHS trusts in the Midlands, UK; (3) a choice experiment survey distributed to UK intensive care unit consultants and critical care outreach nurses, eliciting their preferences for factors used in decision-making for intensive care unit admission; (4) development of a decision-support intervention informed by the previous work streams, including an ethical framework for decision-making and supporting referral and decision-support forms and patient and family information leaflets. Implementation feasibility was tested in three NHS trusts; (5) development and testing of a tool to evaluate the ethical quality of decision-making related to intensive care unit admission, based on the assessment of patient records. The tool was tested for inter-rater and intersite reliability in 120 patient records.

Results

Influences on decision-making identified in the systematic review and ethnographic study included age, presence of chronic illness, functional status, presence of a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order, referring specialty, referrer seniority and intensive care unit bed availability. Intensive care unit doctors used a gestalt assessment of the patient when making decisions. The choice experiment showed that age was the most important factor in consultants’ and critical care outreach nurses’ preferences for admission. The ethnographic study illuminated the complexity of the decision-making process, and the importance of interprofessional relationships and good communication between teams and with patients and families. Doctors found it difficult to articulate and balance the benefits and burdens of intensive care unit treatment for a patient. There was low uptake of the decision-support intervention, although doctors who used it noted that it improved articulation of reasons for decisions and communication with patients.

Limitations

Limitations existed in each of the component studies; for example, we had difficulty recruiting patients and families in our qualitative work. However, the project benefited from a mixed-method approach that mitigated the potential limitations of the component studies.

Conclusions

Decision-making surrounding referral and admission to the intensive care unit is complex. This study has provided evidence and resources to help clinicians and organisations aiming to improve the decision-making for and, ultimately, the care of critically ill patients.

Future work

Further research is needed into decision-making practices, particularly in how best to engage with patients and families during the decision process. The development and evaluation of training for clinicians involved in these decisions should be a priority for future work.

Study registration

The systematic reviews of this study are registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039054, CRD42015019711 and CRD42015019714.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit.

People, systems and safety: resilience and excellence in healthcare practice

This article outlines recent developments in safety science. It describes the progression of three 'ages' of safety, namely the 'age of technology', the 'age of human factors' and the 'age of safety management'. Safety science outside healthcare is moving from an approach focused on the analysis and management of error ('Safety-1') to one which also aims to understand the inherent properties of safety systems that usually prevent accidents from occurring ('Safety-2'). A key factor in the understanding of safety within organisations relates to the distinction between 'work as imagined' and 'work as done'. 'Work as imagined' assumes that if the correct standard procedures are followed, safety will follow as a matter of course. However, staff at the 'sharp end' of organisations know that to create safety in their work, variability is not only desirable but essential. This positive adaptability within systems that allows good outcomes in the presence of both favourable and adverse conditions is termed resilience. We argue that clinical and organisational work can be made safer, not only by addressing negative outcomes, but also by fostering excellence and promoting resilience. We outline conceptual and investigative approaches for achieving this that include 'appreciative inquiry', 'positive deviance' and excellence reporting.

Activities of an ECMO Center for Severe Respiratory Failure: ECMO Retrieval and Beyond, A 4-Year Experience

OBJECTIVE

Beyond retrieval and management of patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) center also encompasses several other actions, such as on-call consultations, advice, and counseling, to the physicians at the peripheral centers, but few data are available on this topic. Therefore, the authors describe the composite activities of retrieval and counseling of an ECMO center since 2014.

DESIGN

The referral calls addressed to the authors' ECMO center for patients with respiratory failure were prospectively recorded in a dedicated database. Referral call frequency, patient data, and results of the calls were analyzed.

SETTING

The 12-bed intensive care unit of Careggi Hospital in Florence, the ECMO referral center for Tuscany, and the center of Italy, with a mobile ECMO team.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients from intensive care units of peripheral hospitals for whom a referral call was addressed to the authors' ECMO center.

INTERVENTIONS

Many possible responses were given after a referral call, varying from ECMO team deployment to advice or to refusal.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

From January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, 231 calls were received at the authors' ECMO center, of which 220 calls were for acute respiratory failure cases. Throughout the study period the overall number of calls did not vary, but the percentage of ECMO retrievals decreased, whereas the percentage of ARF patients from peripheral hospital admitted to our ECMO center on conventional ventilation increased. Fifty-five patients were treated by the mobile ECMO team and were transferred on ECMO; 59 were admitted on ventilatory support. In flu periods the overall calls were more frequent than in the no-flu periods (171 v 82 calls), and more ECMO retrieval missions were deployed.

CONCLUSIONS

During the study period, a decreased number of patients retrieved on ECMO was observed, whereas patients transferred on ventilation increased, with an overall unchanged number of referred patients.

The experiences of health care professionals, patients, and families of the process of referral and admission to intensive care: A systematic literature review

Treatment in an intensive care unit can be life-saving but it can be distressing and not every patient can benefit. Decisions to admit a patient to an intensive care unit are complex. We wished to explore how the decision to refer or admit is experienced by those involved, and undertook a systematic review of the literature to answer the research question: What are the experiences of health care professionals, patients, and families, of the process of referral and admission to an intensive care unit? Twelve relevant studies were identified, and a thematic analysis was conducted. Most studies involved health care professionals, with only two considering patients' or families' experiences. Four themes were identified which influenced experiences of intensive care unit referral and review: the professional environment; communication; the allocation of limited resources; and acknowledging uncertainty. Patients' and families' experiences have been under-researched in this area.

Decision-making in ICU - A systematic review of factors considered important by ICU clinician decision makers with regard to ICU triage decisions

BACKGROUND

The ICU is a scarce resource within a high-stress, high-stakes, time-sensitive environment where critically ill patients with life-threatening conditions receive expensive life-sustaining care under the guidance of expert qualified personnel. The implications of decisions such as suitability for admission into ICU are potentially dire and difficult.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of clinicians' subjective perceptions of factors that influence the decision to accept or refuse patients referred to ICU.

RESULTS

Twenty studies yielded 56 different factors classified into patient, physician and environmental. Common, important factors were: acute illness severity and reversibility; presence and severity of comorbidities; patient age, functional status, state-of-mind and wishes; physician level of experience and perception of patient QOL; and bed availability. Within-group variability among physicians and thought-deed discordance were demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

The complex and dynamic ICU triage decision is affected by numerous interacting factors. The literature provides some indication of these factors, but fail to show complexities and interactions between them. A decision tree is proposed. Further research should include a reflection on how decisions for admission to ICU are made, such that a better understanding of these processes can be achieved allowing for improved individual and group consistency.

Decision-making in intensive care medicine - A review

Decision-making by intensivists around accepting patients to intensive care units is a complex area, with often high-stakes, difficult, emotive decisions being made with limited patient information, high uncertainty about outcomes and extreme pressure to make these decisions quickly. This is exacerbated by a lack of clear guidelines to help guide this difficult decision-making process, with the onus largely relying on clinical experience and judgement. In addition to uncertainty compounding decision-making at the individual clinical level, it is further complicated at the multi-speciality level for the senior doctors and surgeons referring to intensive care units. This is a systematic review of the existing literature about this decision-making process and the factors that help guide these decisions on both sides of the intensive care unit admission dilemma. We found many studies exist assessing the patient factors correlated with intensive care unit admission decisions. Analysing these together suggests that factors consistently found to be correlated with a decision to admit or refuse a patient from intensive care unit are bed availability, severity of illness, initial ward or team referred from, patient choice, do not resuscitate status, age and functional baseline. Less research has been done on the decision-making process itself and the factors that are important to the accepting intensivists; however, similar themes are seen. Even less research exists on referral decision and demonstrates that in addition to the factors correlated with intensive care unit admission decisions, other wider variables are considered by the referring non-intensivists. No studies are available that investigate the decision-making process in referring non-intensivists or the mismatch of processes and pressure between the two sides of the intensive care unit referral dilemma.