Mechanical ventilation in older adults with dementia: opportunities to promote goal-concordant care

CONTEXT

Recent studies show increasing use of mechanical ventilation among people living with dementia. There are concerns that this trend may not be driven by patient preferences.

OBJECTIVES

To better understand decision-making regarding mechanical ventilation in people living with dementia.

METHODS

This was an electronic health record-based retrospective cohort study of older adults with dementia (n=295) hospitalized at one of two teaching hospitals between 2015 and 2019 who were supported with mechanical ventilation (n=191) or died without mechanical ventilation (n=104). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between patient characteristics and mechanical ventilation use.

RESULTS

The median age was 78 years (IQR 71-86), 41% were female, 28% resided in a nursing home, and 58% had clinical markers of advanced dementia (dehydration, weight loss, mobility limitations, or pressure ulcers). Among patients supported with mechanical ventilation, 70% were intubated within 24 hours of presentation, including 31% intubated before hospital arrival. Younger age, higher illness acuity, and absence of a treatment-limiting Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment document were associated with mechanical ventilation use; nursing home residence and clinical markers of advanced dementia were not. Most patients (89%) had a documented goals of care discussion (GOCD) during hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Future efforts to promote goal-concordant care surrounding mechanical ventilation use for people living with dementia should involve identifying barriers to goal-concordant care in pre-hospital settings, assessing the timeliness of in-hospital GOCD, and developing strategies for in-the-moment crisis communication across settings.

Identification of Palliative Care Needs and Mental Health Outcomes Among Family Members of Patients With Severe Acute Brain Injury

Importance

Family members of patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) are at risk for poor psychological outcomes.

Objective

To explore the utility of the early use of a palliative care needs checklist in identifying care needs of patients with SABI and family members who are at risk of poor psychological outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study included patients with SABI in an intensive care unit (ICU) for 2 days or more and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12 or lower and their family members. This single-center study was conducted at an academic hospital in Seattle, Washington, from January 2018 to June 2021. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to July 2022.

Exposure

At enrollment, a 4-item palliative care needs checklist was completed separately by clinicians and family members.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A single family member for each enrolled patient completed questionnaires assessing symptoms of depression and anxiety, perception of goal-concordant care, and satisfaction in the ICU. Six months later, family members assessed their psychological symptoms, decisional regret, patient functional outcome, and patient quality of life (QOL).

Results

A total of 209 patient-family member pairs (family member mean [SD] age, 51 [16] years; 133 women [64%]; 18 Asian [9%], 21 Black [10%], 20 [10%] Hispanic, and 153 White [73%] participants) were included. Patients had experienced stroke (126 [60%]), traumatic brain injury (62 [30%]), and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (21 [10%]). At least 1 need was identified for 185 patients or their families (88%) by family members and 110 (53%) by clinicians (κ = -0.007; 52% agreement). Symptoms of at least moderate anxiety or depression were present in 50% of family members at enrollment (87 with anxiety and 94 with depression) and 20% at follow-up (33 with anxiety and 29 with depression). After adjustment for patient age, diagnosis, and disease severity and family race and ethnicity, clinician identification of any need was associated with greater goal discordance (203 participants; relative risk = 1.7 [95% CI, 1.2 to 2.5]) and family decisional regret (144 participants; difference in means, 17 [95% CI, 5 to 29] points). Family member identification of any need was associated with greater symptoms of depression at follow-up (150 participants; difference in means of Patient Health Questionnaire-2, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.2 to 1.3] points) and worse perceived patient QOL (78 participants; difference in means, -17.1 [95% CI, -33.6 to -0.5] points).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this prospective cohort study of patients with SABI and their families, palliative care needs were common, although agreement on needs was poor between clinicians and family members. A palliative care needs checklist completed by clinicians and family members may improve communication and promote timely, targeted management of needs.

Admission Code Status and End-of-life Care for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

CONTEXT

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted variability in intensity of care. We aimed to characterize intensity of care among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

Examine the prevalence and predictors of admission code status, palliative care consultation, comfort-measures-only orders, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study examined data from an international registry of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A proportional odds model evaluated predictors of more aggressive code status (i.e., Full Code) vs. less (i.e., Do Not Resuscitate, DNR). Among decedents, logistic regression was used to identify predictors of palliative care consultation, comfort measures only, and CPR at time of death.

RESULTS

We included 29,923 patients across 179 sites. Among those with admission code status documented, Full Code was selected by 90% (n = 15,273). Adjusting for site, Full Code was more likely for patients who were of Black or Asian race (ORs 1.82, 95% CIs 1.5-2.19; 1.78, 1.15-3.09 respectively, relative to White race), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.89, CI 1.35-2.32), and male sex (OR 1.16, CI 1.0-1.33). Of the 4951 decedents, 29% received palliative care consultation, 59% transitioned to comfort measures only, and 29% received CPR, with non-White racial and ethnic groups less likely to receive comfort measures only and more likely to receive CPR.

CONCLUSION

In this international cohort of patients with COVID-19, Full Code was the initial code status in the majority, and more likely among patients who were Black or Asian race, Hispanic ethnicity or male. These results provide direction for future studies to improve these disparities in care.

Prognosis Predictions by Families, Physicians, and Nurses of Patients with Severe Acute Brain Injury: Agreement and Accuracy

BACKGROUND

Effective shared decision-making relies on some degree of alignment between families and the medical team regarding a patient's likelihood of recovery. Patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) are often unable to participate in decisions, and therefore family members make decisions on their behalf. The goal of this study was to evaluate agreement between prognostic predictions by families, physicians, and nurses of patients with SABI regarding their likelihood of regaining independence and to measure each group's prediction accuracy.

METHODS

This observational cohort study, conducted from 01/2018 to 07/2020, was based in the neuroscience and medical/cardiac intensive care units of a single center. Patient eligibility included a diagnosis of SABI-specifically stroke, traumatic brain injury, or hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy-and a Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 12 after hospital day 2. At enrollment, families, physicians, and nurses were asked separately to predict a patient's likelihood of recovering to independence within 6 months on a 0-100 scale, regardless of whether a formal family meeting had occurred. True outcome was based on modified Rankin Scale assessment through a family report or medical chart review. Prognostic agreement was measured by (1) intraclass correlation coefficient; (2) mean group prediction comparisons using paired Student's t-tests; and (3) prevalence of concordance, defined as an absolute difference of less than 20 percentage points between predictions. Accuracy for each group was measured by calculating the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (C statistic) and compared by using DeLong's test.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 222 patients and families, 45 physicians, and 103 nurses. Complete data on agreement and accuracy were available for 187 and 177 patients, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient, in which 1 indicates perfect correlation and 0 indicates no correlation, was 0.49 for physician-family pairs, 0.40 for family-nurse pairs, and 0.66 for physician-nurse pairs. The difference in mean predictions between families and physicians was 23.5 percentage points (p < 0.001), 25.4 between families and nurses (p < 0.001), and 1.9 between physicians and nurses (p = 0.38). Prevalence of concordance was 39.6% for family-physician pairs, 30.0% for family-nurse pairs, and 56.2% for physician-nurse pairs. The C statistic for prediction accuracy was 0.65 for families, 0.82 for physicians, and 0.76 for nurses. The p values for differences in C statistics were < 0.05 for family-physician and family-nurse groups and 0.18 for physician-nurse groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with SABI, agreement in predictions between families, physicians, and nurses regarding likelihood of recovery is poor. Accuracy appears higher for physicians and nurses compared with families, with no significant difference between physicians and nurses.

Goal-Concordant Care After Severe Acute Brain Injury

Background: Patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) lack decision-making capacity, calling on families and clinicians to make goal-concordant decisions, aligning treatment with patient's presumed goals-of-care. Using the family perspective, this study aimed to (1) compare patient's goals-of-care with the care they were receiving in the acute setting, (2) identify patient and family characteristics associated with goal-concordant care, and (3) assess goals-of-care 6 months after SABI.

Methods: Our cohort included patients with SABI in our Neuro-ICU and a Glasgow Coma Scale Score <12 after day 2. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were collected through surveys and chart review. At enrollment and again at 6 months, each family was asked if the patient would prefer medical care focused on extending life vs. care focused on comfort and quality of life, and what care the patient is currently receiving. We used multivariate regression to examine the characteristics associated with (a) prioritized goals (comfort/extending life/unsure) and (b) goal concordance.

Results: Among 214 patients, families reported patients' goals-of-care to be extending life in 118 cases (55%), comfort in 71 (33%), and unsure for 25 (12%), while care received focused on extending life in 165 cases (77%), on comfort in 23 (11%) and families were unsure in 16 (7%). In a nominal regression model, prioritizing comfort over extending life was significantly associated with being non-Hispanic White and having worse clinical severity. Most patients who prioritized extending life were receiving family-reported goal-concordant care (88%, 104/118), while most of those who prioritized comfort were receiving goal-discordant care (73%, 52/71). The only independent association for goal concordance was having a presumed goal of extending life at enrollment (OR 23.62, 95% CI 10.19–54.77). Among survivors at 6 months, 1 in 4 family members were unsure about the patient's goals-of-care.

Conclusion: A substantial proportion of patients are receiving unwanted aggressive care in the acute setting after SABI. In the first days, such aggressive care might be justified by prognostic uncertainty. The high rate of families unsure of patient's goals-of-care at 6 months suggests an important need for periodic re-evaluation of prognosis and goals-of-care in the post-acute setting.

Assessment of Discordance Between Physicians and Family Members Regarding Prognosis in Patients With Severe Acute Brain Injury

IMPORTANCE

Shared decision-making requires key stakeholders to align in perceptions of prognosis and likely treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

For patients with severe acute brain injury, the objective of this study was to better understand prognosis discordance between physicians and families by determining prevalence and associated factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This mixed-methods cross-sectional study analyzed a cohort collected from January 4, 2018, to July 22, 2020. This study was conducted in the medical and cardiac intensive care units of a single neuroscience center. Participants included families, physicians, and nurses of patients admitted with severe acute brain injury.

EXPOSURES

Severe acute brain injury was defined as stroke, traumatic brain injury, or hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy with a Glasgow Coma Scale score less than or equal to 12 points after hospital day 2.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prognosis discordance was defined as a 20% or greater difference between family and physician prognosis predictions; misunderstanding was defined as a 20% or greater difference between physician prediction and the family's estimate of physician prediction; and optimistic belief difference was defined as any difference (>0%) between family prediction and their estimate of physician prediction. Logistic regression was used to identify associations with discordance. Optimistic belief differences were analyzed as a subgroup of prognosis discordance.

RESULTS

Among 222 enrolled patients, prognostic predictions were available for 193 patients (mean [SD] age, 57 [19] years; 106 men [55%]). Prognosis discordance occurred for 118 patients (61%) and was significantly more common among families who identified with minoritized racial groups compared with White families (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; CI, 1.40-7.07, P = .006); among siblings (OR, 4.93; 95% CI, 1.35-17.93, P = .02) and adult children (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.10-5.37; P = .03) compared with spouses; and when nurses perceived family understanding as poor compared with good (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 1.88-7.40; P < .001). Misunderstanding was present for 80 of 173 patients (46%) evaluated for this type of prognosis discordance, and optimistic belief difference was present for 94 of 173 patients (54%). In qualitative analysis, faith and uncertainty emerged as themes underlying belief differences. Nurse perception of poor family understanding was significantly associated with misunderstanding (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.07-3.94; P = .03), and physician perception with optimistic belief differences (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.10-4.88; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that for patients with severe acute brain injury, prognosis discordance between physicians and families was common. Efforts to improve communication and decision-making should aim to reduce this discordance and find ways to target both misunderstanding and optimistic belief differences.