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

Performance of 21 Early Warning System scores in predicting in-hospital deterioration among undifferentiated admitted patients managed by ambulance services

BACKGROUND

The optimal Early Warning System (EWS) scores for identifying patients at risk of clinical deterioration among those transported by ambulance services remain uncertain. This retrospective study compared the performance of 21 EWS scores to predict clinical deterioration using vital signs (VS) measured in the prehospital or emergency department (ED) setting.

METHODS

Adult patients transported to a single ED by ambulances and subsequently admitted to the hospital between 1 January 2019 and 18 April 2019 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes included 3-day mortality, admission to intensive care or coronary care units, length of hospital stay and emergency call activations. The discriminative ability of the EWS scores was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Subanalyses compared the performance of EWS scores between surgical and medical patient types.

RESULTS

Of 1414 patients, 995 (70.4%) (53.1% male, mean age 68.7±17.5 years) were included. In the ED setting, 30-day mortality was best predicted by VitalPAC EWS (AUROC 0.71, 95% CI (0.65 to 0.77)) and National Early Warning Score (0.709 (0.65 to 0.77)). All EWS scores calculated in the prehospital setting had AUROC <0.70. Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (0.83 (0.73 to 0.92)) and New Zealand EWS (0.88 (0.81 to 0.95)) best predicted 3-day mortality in the prehospital and ED settings, respectively. EWS scores calculated using either prehospital or ED VS were more effective in predicting 3-day mortality in surgical patients, whereas 30-day mortality was best predicted in medical patients. Among the EWS scores that achieved AUROC ≥0.70, no statistically significant differences were detected in their discriminatory abilities to identify patients at risk of clinical deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

EWS scores better predict 3-day as opposed to 30-day mortality and are more accurate when estimated using VS measured in the ED. The discriminatory performance of EWS scores in identifying patients at higher risk of clinical deterioration may vary by patient type.

Characteristics of critically ill patients with cancer associated with intensivist's perception of inappropriateness of ICU admission: A retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Although admitting cancer patients to the ICU is no longer an issue, it may be valuable to identify patients perceived least likely to benefit from admission. Our objective was to investigate factors associated with potentially inappropriate ICU admission.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer with unplanned ICU admission. We classified admissions as appropriate or potentially inappropriate according to Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines. We used logistic regression model to assess factors associated with inappropriateness for ICU admission.

RESULTS

From 3384 patients, 663 (19.6%) were classified as potentially inappropriate. They received more invasive mechanical ventilation (25.3% vs 12.5%, P < 0.001) and vasopressors (34.4% vs 30.1%, P = 0.034), had higher ICU [3 (2,6) vs 2 (1,4), P < 0.001] length-of-stay, higher ICU (32.7% vs 8.4%, P < 0.001), hospital (71.9% vs 21.3%, P < 0.001), and one-year mortality (97.6% vs 54.7%, P < 0.001) compared with those considered appropriate. Performance status impairment, more severe organ dysfunctions at admission, metastatic disease, and source of ICU admission were the characteristics associated with intensivist's perception of inappropriateness of ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings may help guide ICU admission policies and triage criteria for end-of-life discussions among hospitalized patients with cancer.

Doctors' experiences of referring and admitting patients to the intensive care unit: a qualitative study of doctors' practices at two tertiary hospitals in Malawi

OBJECTIVE

To explore doctors' experiences of referring and admitting patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Malawi.

DESIGN

This was a qualitative study that used face-to-face interviews. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim into English. The data were analysed manually through conventional content analysis.

SETTING

Two public tertiary hospitals in the central and southern regions of Malawi. Interviews were conducted from January to June 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen doctors who were involved in the referral and admission of patients to the ICU.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified namely, lack of clear admission criteria, ICU admission requires a complex chain of consultations, shortage of ICU resources, and lack of an ethical and legal framework for discontinuing treatment of critically ill patients who were too sick to benefit from ICU.

CONCLUSION

Despite the acute disease burden and increased demand for ICU care, the two hospitals lack clear processes for referring and admitting patients to the ICU. Given the limited bed space in ICUs, hospitals in low-income countries, including Malawi, need to improve or develop admission criteria, severity scoring systems, ongoing professional development activities, and legislation for discontinuing intensive care treatments and end-of-life care.

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.

UK consultants' experiences of the decision-making process around referral to intensive care: an interview study

OBJECTIVE

The decision whether to initiate intensive care for the critically ill patient involves ethical questions regarding what is good and right for the patient. It is not clear how referring doctors negotiate these issues in practice. The aim of this study was to describe and understand consultants' experiences of the decision-making process around referral to intensive care.

DESIGN

Qualitative interviews were analysed according to a phenomenological hermeneutical method.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Consultant doctors (n=27) from departments regularly referring patients to intensive care in six UK hospitals.

RESULTS

In the precarious and uncertain situation of critical illness, trust in the decision-making process is needed and can be enhanced through the way in which the process unfolds. When there are no obvious right or wrong answers as to what ought to be done, how the decision is made and how the process unfolds is morally important. Through acknowledging the burdensome doubts in the process, contributing to an emerging, joint understanding of the patient's situation, and responding to mutual moral duties of the doctors involved, trust in the decision-making process can be enhanced and a shared moral responsibility between the stake holding doctors can be assumed.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the importance of trust in the decision-making process and how the relationships between the stakeholding doctors are crucial to support their moral responsibility for the patient. Poor interpersonal relationships can damage trust and negatively impact decisions made on behalf of a critically ill patient. For this reason, active attempts must be made to foster good relationships between doctors. This is not only important to create a positive working environment, but a mechanism to improve patient outcomes.

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.