Search

COVID-19 may cause sudden serious illness, and relatives having to act on patients’ behalf, emphasizing the relevance of advance care planning (ACP). We explored how ACP was portrayed in newspapers during year one of the pandemic. In ‘LexisNexis Uni’, we identified English-language newspaper articles about ACP and COVID-19, published January–November 2020. We applied content analysis; unitizing, sampling, recording or coding, reducing, inferring, and narrating the data. We identified 131 articles, published in UK (n = 59), Canada (n = 32), US (n = 15), Australia (n = 14), Ireland (n = 6), and one each from Israel, Uganda, India, New-Zealand, and France. Forty articles (31%) included definitions of ACP. Most mentioned exploring (93%), discussing (71%), and recording (72%) treatment preferences; 28% described exploration of values/goals, 66% encouraged engaging in ACP. No false or sensationalist information about ACP was provided. ACP was often not fully described. Public campaigns about ACP might improve the full picture of ACP to the public.

Background: A recent large multicentre trial found no difference in clinical outcomes but identified a possibility of increased mortality rates in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving higher protein. These alarming findings highlighted the urgent need to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform clinical practice. Methods: From personal files, citation searching, and three databases searched up to 29-5-2023, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult critically ill patients that compared higher vs lower protein delivery with similar energy delivery between groups and reported clinical and/or patient-centred outcomes. We conducted random-effect meta-analyses and subsequently trial sequential analyses (TSA) to control for type-1 and type-2 errors. The main subgroup analysis investigated studies with and without combined early physical rehabilitation intervention. A subgroup analysis of AKI vs no/not known AKI was also conducted. Results: Twenty-three RCTs (n = 3303) with protein delivery of 1.49 ± 0.48 vs 0.92 ± 0.30 g/kg/d were included. Higher protein delivery was not associated with overall mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.11; I 2 = 0%; 21 studies; low certainty) and other clinical outcomes. In 2 small studies, higher protein combined with early physical rehabilitation showed a trend towards improved self-reported quality-of-life physical function measurements at day-90 (standardized mean difference 0.40, 95% CI − 0.04 to 0.84; I 2 = 30%). In the AKI subgroup, higher protein delivery significantly increased mortality (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11–1.82; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies; confirmed by TSA with high certainty, and the number needed to harm is 7). Higher protein delivery also significantly increased serum urea (mean difference 2.31 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.64–2.97; I 2 = 0%; 7 studies). Conclusion: Higher, compared with lower protein delivery, does not appear to affect clinical outcomes in genera

Background This large-scale analysis pools individual data about the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to predict outcome in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods A systematic search identified all clinical trials that used the CFS in the ICU (PubMed searched until 24th June 2020). All patients who were electively admitted were excluded. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Regression models were estimated on the complete data set, and for missing data, multiple imputations were utilised. Cox models were adjusted for age, sex, and illness acuity score (SOFA, SAPS II or APACHE II). Results 12 studies from 30 countries with anonymised individualised patient data were included (n = 23,989 patients). In the univariate analysis for all patients, being frail (CFS >= 5) was associated with an increased risk of ICU mortality, but not after adjustment. In older patients (>= 65 years) there was an independent association with ICU mortality both in the complete case analysis (HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.25-1.44), p < 0.0001) and in the multiple imputation analysis (HR 1.35 (95% CI 1.26-1.45), p < 0.0001, adjusted for SOFA). In older patients, being vulnerable (CFS 4) alone did not significantly differ from being frail. After adjustment, a CFS of 4-5, 6, and >= 7 was associated with a significantly worse outcome compared to CFS of 1-3. Conclusions Being frail is associated with a significantly increased risk for ICU mortality in older patients, while being vulnerable alone did not significantly differ. New Frailty categories might reflect its "continuum" better and predict ICU outcome more accurately., Funding Agencies|Projekt DEAL; Forschungskommission of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf [2018-32, 2020-21]

Background This large-scale analysis pools individual data about the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to predict outcome in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods A systematic search identified all clinical trials that used the CFS in the ICU (PubMed searched until 24th June 2020). All patients who were electively admitted were excluded. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Regression models were estimated on the complete data set, and for missing data, multiple imputations were utilised. Cox models were adjusted for age, sex, and illness acuity score (SOFA, SAPS II or APACHE II). Results 12 studies from 30 countries with anonymised individualised patient data were included (n = 23,989 patients). In the univariate analysis for all patients, being frail (CFS >= 5) was associated with an increased risk of ICU mortality, but not after adjustment. In older patients (>= 65 years) there was an independent association with ICU mortality both in the complete case analysis (HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.25-1.44), p < 0.0001) and in the multiple imputation analysis (HR 1.35 (95% CI 1.26-1.45), p < 0.0001, adjusted for SOFA). In older patients, being vulnerable (CFS 4) alone did not significantly differ from being frail. After adjustment, a CFS of 4-5, 6, and >= 7 was associated with a significantly worse outcome compared to CFS of 1-3. Conclusions Being frail is associated with a significantly increased risk for ICU mortality in older patients, while being vulnerable alone did not significantly differ. New Frailty categories might reflect its "continuum" better and predict ICU outcome more accurately., Funding Agencies|Projekt DEAL; Forschungskommission of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf [2018-32, 2020-21]

Background This large-scale analysis pools individual data about the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to predict outcome in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods A systematic search identified all clinical trials that used the CFS in the ICU (PubMed searched until 24th June 2020). All patients who were electively admitted were excluded. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Regression models were estimated on the complete data set, and for missing data, multiple imputations were utilised. Cox models were adjusted for age, sex, and illness acuity score (SOFA, SAPS II or APACHE II). Results 12 studies from 30 countries with anonymised individualised patient data were included (n = 23,989 patients). In the univariate analysis for all patients, being frail (CFS >= 5) was associated with an increased risk of ICU mortality, but not after adjustment. In older patients (>= 65 years) there was an independent association with ICU mortality both in the complete case analysis (HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.25-1.44), p < 0.0001) and in the multiple imputation analysis (HR 1.35 (95% CI 1.26-1.45), p < 0.0001, adjusted for SOFA). In older patients, being vulnerable (CFS 4) alone did not significantly differ from being frail. After adjustment, a CFS of 4-5, 6, and >= 7 was associated with a significantly worse outcome compared to CFS of 1-3. Conclusions Being frail is associated with a significantly increased risk for ICU mortality in older patients, while being vulnerable alone did not significantly differ. New Frailty categories might reflect its "continuum" better and predict ICU outcome more accurately., Funding Agencies|Projekt DEAL; Forschungskommission of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf [2018-32, 2020-21]

BACKGROUND Glutamine is thought to have beneficial effects on the metabolic and stress response to severe injury. Clinical trials involving patients with burns and other critically ill patients have shown conflicting results regarding the benefits and risks of glutamine supplementation. METHODS In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with deep second-or third-degree burns (affecting >= 10% to >= 20% of total body-surface area, depending on age) within 72 hours after hospital admission to receive 0.5 g per kilogram of body weight per day of enterally delivered glutamine or placebo. Trial agents were given every 4 hours through a feeding tube or three or four times a day by mouth until 7 days after the last skin grafting procedure, discharge from the acute care unit, or 3 months after admission, whichever came first. The primary outcome was the time to discharge alive from the hospital, with data censored at 90 days. We calculated subdistribution hazard ratios for discharge alive, which took into account death as a competing risk. RESULTS A total of 1209 patients with severe burns (mean burn size, 33% of total body-surface area) underwent randomization, and 1200 were included in the analysis (596 patients in the glutamine group and 604 in the placebo group). The median time to discharge alive from the hospital was 40 days (interquartile range, 24 to 87) in the glutamine group and 38 days (interquartile range, 22 to 75) in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio for discharge alive, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Mortality at 6 months was 17.2% in the glutamine group and 16.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.41). No substantial between-group differences in serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS In patients with severe burns, supplemental glutamine did not reduce the time to discharge alive from the hospital.

Background & aims: In critically ill patients, direct measurement of skeletal muscle using bedside ultrasound (US) may identify a patient population that might benefit more from optimal nutrition practices. When US is not available, survey measures of nutrition risk and functional status that are associated with muscle status may be used to identify patients with low muscularity. This study aims to determine the association between baseline and changing ultrasound quadriceps muscle status with premorbid functional status and 60-day mortality. Methods: This single-center prospective observational study was conducted in a general ICU. Mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients (age ≥18 years) without pre-existing systemic neuromuscular diseases and expected to stay for ≥96 h in the ICU were included. US measurements were performed within 48 h of ICU admission (baseline), at day 7, day 14 of ICU stay and at ICU discharge (if stay >14 days). Quadriceps muscle layer thickness (QMLT), rectus femoris cross sectional area (RFCSA), vastus intermedius pennation angle (PA) and fascicle length (FL), and rectus femoris echogenicity (mean and standard deviation [SD]) were measured. Patients' next-of-kin were interviewed by using established questionnaires for their pre-hospitalization nutritional risk (nutrition risk screening-2002) and functional status (SARC-F, clinical frailty scale [CFS], Katz activities of daily living [ADL] and Lawton Instrumental ADL). Results: Ninety patients were recruited. A total of 86, 53, 24 and 10 US measures were analyzed, which were performed at a median of 1, 7, 14 and 22 days from ICU admission, respectively. QMLT, RFCSA and PA reduced significantly over time. The overall trend of change of FL was not significant. The only independent predictor of 60-day mortality was the change of QMLT from baseline to day 7 (adjusted odds ratio 0.95 for every 1% less QMLT loss, 95% confidence interval 0.91-0.99; p = 0.02). Baseline measures of high

Background: The optimal protein dose in critical illness is unknown. We aim to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effect of higher versus lower protein delivery (with similar energy delivery between groups) on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from database inception through April 1, 2021.We included RCTs of (1) adult (age ≥ 18) critically ill patients that (2) compared higher vs lower protein with (3) similar energy intake between groups, and (4) reported clinical and/or patient-centered outcomes. We excluded studies on immunonutrition. Two authors screened and conducted quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). Results: Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 1731). Sixteen studies used primarily the enteral route to deliver protein. Intervention was started within 72 h of ICU admission in sixteen studies. The intervention lasted between 3 and 28 days. In 11 studies that reported weight-based nutrition delivery, the pooled mean protein and energy received in higher and lower protein groups were 1.31 ± 0.48 vs 0.90 ± 0.30 g/kg and 19.9 ± 6.9 versus 20.1 ± 7.1 kcal/kg, respectively. Higher vs lower protein did not significantly affect overall mortality [risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.10, p = 0.34] or other clinical or patient-centered outcomes. In 5 small studies, higher protein significantly attenuated muscle loss (MD -3.44% per week, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.90; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In critically ill patients, a higher daily protein delivery was not associated with any improvement in clinical or patient-centered outcomes. Larger, and more definitive RCTs are needed to confirm the effect of muscle loss attenuation associated with higher protein delivery. PROSPERO regis

Background & aims: In critically ill patients, direct measurement of skeletal muscle using bedside ultrasound (US) may identify a patient population that might benefit more from optimal nutrition practices. When US is not available, survey measures of nutrition risk and functional status that are associated with muscle status may be used to identify patients with low muscularity. This study aims to determine the association between baseline and changing ultrasound quadriceps muscle status with premorbid functional status and 60-day mortality. Methods: This single-center prospective observational study was conducted in a general ICU. Mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients (age ≥18 years) without pre-existing systemic neuromuscular diseases and expected to stay for ≥96 h in the ICU were included. US measurements were performed within 48 h of ICU admission (baseline), at day 7, day 14 of ICU stay and at ICU discharge (if stay >14 days). Quadriceps muscle layer thickness (QMLT), rectus femoris cross sectional area (RFCSA), vastus intermedius pennation angle (PA) and fascicle length (FL), and rectus femoris echogenicity (mean and standard deviation [SD]) were measured. Patients' next-of-kin were interviewed by using established questionnaires for their pre-hospitalization nutritional risk (nutrition risk screening-2002) and functional status (SARC-F, clinical frailty scale [CFS], Katz activities of daily living [ADL] and Lawton Instrumental ADL). Results: Ninety patients were recruited. A total of 86, 53, 24 and 10 US measures were analyzed, which were performed at a median of 1, 7, 14 and 22 days from ICU admission, respectively. QMLT, RFCSA and PA reduced significantly over time. The overall trend of change of FL was not significant. The only independent predictor of 60-day mortality was the change of QMLT from baseline to day 7 (adjusted odds ratio 0.95 for every 1% less QMLT loss, 95% confidence interval 0.91-0.99; p = 0.02). Baseline measures of high

Background: The optimal protein dose in critical illness is unknown. We aim to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effect of higher versus lower protein delivery (with similar energy delivery between groups) on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from database inception through April 1, 2021.We included RCTs of (1) adult (age ≥ 18) critically ill patients that (2) compared higher vs lower protein with (3) similar energy intake between groups, and (4) reported clinical and/or patient-centered outcomes. We excluded studies on immunonutrition. Two authors screened and conducted quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). Results: Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 1731). Sixteen studies used primarily the enteral route to deliver protein. Intervention was started within 72 h of ICU admission in sixteen studies. The intervention lasted between 3 and 28 days. In 11 studies that reported weight-based nutrition delivery, the pooled mean protein and energy received in higher and lower protein groups were 1.31 ± 0.48 vs 0.90 ± 0.30 g/kg and 19.9 ± 6.9 versus 20.1 ± 7.1 kcal/kg, respectively. Higher vs lower protein did not significantly affect overall mortality [risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.10, p = 0.34] or other clinical or patient-centered outcomes. In 5 small studies, higher protein significantly attenuated muscle loss (MD -3.44% per week, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.90; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In critically ill patients, a higher daily protein delivery was not associated with any improvement in clinical or patient-centered outcomes. Larger, and more definitive RCTs are needed to confirm the effect of muscle loss attenuation associated with higher protein delivery. PROSPERO regis

BackgroundOver the last decade, health care delivery has shifted to partnering with patients and their families to improve health and quality of care, and to lower costs. Partnering with family members (FMs) of critically ill patients who lack capacity is particularly important for improving experiences and outcomes for both patients and FMs. How best to apply such partnering strategies, however, is yet unknown. The IMPACT trial will evaluate two interventions that enable partnerships with families of critically ill patients, each in a distinct content area, but similar in that they empower and support FMs.MethodsThis multi-center, open-label, randomized, phase II clinical trial aims to randomize 150 older, long-stay ICU patients and their families into one of three groups (50 in each group): (1) The OPTimal nutrition by Informing and Capacitating FMs of best practices (OPTICs) group, a multi-faceted intervention to engage and empower FMs to advocate for, and audit, best nutritional practices for their critically ill FMs, (2) A web-based decision-support intervention called the ICU Workbook (The Canadian Researchers at the End of Life Network (CARENET) ICU Workbook; https://www.myicuguide.ca/. Accessed 3 Feb 2017.) to support families in shared decision-making process regarding goals of medical treatments, and (3) Usual care. The main outcomes for this trial include nutritional adequacy in hospital and hand-grip strength prior to hospital discharge; satisfaction with decision-making; decision conflict; and degree of shared decision-making.DiscussionWith the goal of improving the functional recovery of nutritionally high-risk older patients and the quality of care at the end of life for these patients and their FMs in the ICU, we have proposed two novel family capacitation strategies. We hope that the nutrition and decision-support interventions implemented and evaluated in our study will contribute to the evidentiary basis for best family partnered care pathways foc

BackgroundOver the last decade, health care delivery has shifted to partnering with patients and their families to improve health and quality of care, and to lower costs. Partnering with family members (FMs) of critically ill patients who lack capacity is particularly important for improving experiences and outcomes for both patients and FMs. How best to apply such partnering strategies, however, is yet unknown. The IMPACT trial will evaluate two interventions that enable partnerships with families of critically ill patients, each in a distinct content area, but similar in that they empower and support FMs.MethodsThis multi-center, open-label, randomized, phase II clinical trial aims to randomize 150 older, long-stay ICU patients and their families into one of three groups (50 in each group): (1) The OPTimal nutrition by Informing and Capacitating FMs of best practices (OPTICs) group, a multi-faceted intervention to engage and empower FMs to advocate for, and audit, best nutritional practices for their critically ill FMs, (2) A web-based decision-support intervention called the ICU Workbook (The Canadian Researchers at the End of Life Network (CARENET) ICU Workbook; https://www.myicuguide.ca/. Accessed 3 Feb 2017.) to support families in shared decision-making process regarding goals of medical treatments, and (3) Usual care. The main outcomes for this trial include nutritional adequacy in hospital and hand-grip strength prior to hospital discharge; satisfaction with decision-making; decision conflict; and degree of shared decision-making.DiscussionWith the goal of improving the functional recovery of nutritionally high-risk older patients and the quality of care at the end of life for these patients and their FMs in the ICU, we have proposed two novel family capacitation strategies. We hope that the nutrition and decision-support interventions implemented and evaluated in our study will contribute to the evidentiary basis for best family partnered care pathways foc

PurposeOnline programs may help to engage patients in advance care planning in outpatient settings. We sought to implement an online advance care planning program, PREPARE (Prepare for Your Care; http://www.prepareforyourcare.org), at home and evaluate the changes in advance care planning engagement among patients attending outpatient clinics.MethodsWe undertook a prospective before-and-after study in 15 primary care clinics and 2 outpatient cancer centers in Canada. Patients were aged 50 years or older (primary care) or 18 years or older (cancer care) and free of cognitive impairment. They used the PREPARE website over 6 weeks, with reminders sent at 2 or 4 weeks. We used the 55-item Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey, which measures behavior change processes (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy, readiness) on 5-point scales and actions relating to substitute decision makers, quality of life, flexibility for the decision maker, and asking doctors questions on an overall scale from 0 to 21; higher scores indicate greater engagement.ResultsIn total, 315 patients were screened and 172 enrolled, of whom 75% completed the study (mean age = 65.6 years, 51% female, 35% had cancer). The mean behavior change process score was 2.9 (SD 0.8) at baseline and 3.5 (SD 0.8) at follow-up (mean change = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.49-0.73); the mean action measure score was 4.0 (SD 4.9) at baseline and 5.2 (SD 5.4) at follow-up (mean change = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.54-1.77). The effect size was moderate (0.75) for the former and small (0.23) for the latter. Findings were similar in both primary care and cancer care populations.ConclusionsImplementation of the online PREPARE program in primary care and cancer care clinics increased advance care planning engagement among patients.

ContextThe validated 82-item Advance Care Planning (ACP) Engagement Survey measures a broad range of ACP behaviors but is long.ObjectivesDetermine whether shorter survey versions (55-item, 34-item, 15-item, 9-item, and 4-item versions) can detect similar change in response to two well-validated ACP interventions and provide practical effect size information.MethodsWe assessed ACP engagement for 986 English- and Spanish-speaking adults in a randomized trial of PREPARE vs. an advance directive-only study arms. The survey was administered at baseline, one week, three months, six months, and 12 months. We calculated mean change scores from baseline to follow-up time points by study arm, intraclass correlation coefficients of change scores between the 82-item survey with shorter versions, and within-group and between-group effect sizes of the mean change scores.ResultsShorter survey versions were able to detect within-group and between-group changes at all time points. Within-group intraclass correlations of the 82-item to shorter versions were high (0.78-0.97), and the amount of between-group differences was comparable using all survey versions. Twelve-month within-group effect sizes ranged narrowly from 0.76 to 1.05 for different survey versions in the PREPARE arm and from 0.44 to 0.64 for the advance directive-only version. Between-group effect sizes ranged narrowly from 0.24 to 0.30 for different survey versions. Results were similar when stratified by English and Spanish speakers.ConclusionShorter versions of the ACP Engagement Survey were able to detect within-group and between-group changes comparable with the 82-item version and can be useful for efficiently and effectively measuring ACP engagement in research and clinical settings.

CONTEXT:Although measures that assess patient engagement in the advance care planning (ACP) process exist, there are no validated tools to assess surrogate decision makers' (SDMs') role in ACP. OBJECTIVES:The objective of this study was to adapt and begin to validate a patient-oriented questionnaire for use with SDMs of patients with chronic illness. METHODS:Questions from the 55-item patient-oriented ACP engagement survey were adapted for SDMs and assessed for face validity. The resultant 47-item questionnaire was administered to 65 SDMs of patients with chronic illness. Responses were assessed and items were flagged for removal based on item redundancy, nonresponses, and ceiling effects. A preliminary exploratory factor analysis was performed, internal consistency was assessed, and domains were constructed based on findings. RESULTS:The 47-item questionnaire was administered to 65 participants (mean age 51.8; 81% female; 96% Caucasian). Seventeen items were removed owing to redundancy (r > 0.80), and 13 items lacking face validity were removed. In a preliminary exploratory factor analysis of the resultant 17-item questionnaire, a three-factor solution was deemed most statistically and conceptually sound. Items were organized into domains: 1) serving as an SDM (seven items); 2) contemplation (four items); 3) readiness (six items). Internal consistency for each domain was high (Cronbach alpha 0.90-0.91). CONCLUSION:The 17-item ACP engagement survey for SDMs (ACP-17-SDM) is a conceptually sound and reliable questionnaire adaptation of the original ACP engagement survey. This questionnaire may be used by researchers in parallel with the patient-oriented ACP engagement survey to more fully understand the impact of ACP interventions on SDMs. Larger studies are needed to more closely examine construct validity.

ContextStandardized outcomes that define successful advance care planning (ACP) are lacking.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to create an Organizing Framework of ACP outcome constructs and rate the importance of these outcomes.MethodsThis study convened a Delphi panel consisting of 52 multidisciplinary, international ACP experts including clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries. We conducted literature reviews and solicited attendee input from five international ACP conferences to identify initial ACP outcome constructs. In five Delphi rounds, we asked panelists to rate patient-centered outcomes on a seven-point "not-at-all" to "extremely important" scale. We calculated means and analyzed panelists' input to finalize an Organizing Framework and outcome rankings.ResultsOrganizing Framework outcome domains included process (e.g., attitudes), actions (e.g., discussions), quality of care (e.g., satisfaction), and health care (e.g., utilization). The top five outcomes included 1) care consistent with goals, mean 6.71 (±SD 0.04); 2) surrogate designation, 6.55 (0.45); 3) surrogate documentation, 6.50 (0.11); 4) discussions with surrogates, 6.40 (0.19); and 5) documents and recorded wishes are accessible when needed 6.27 (0.11). Advance directive documentation was ranked 10th, 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised caution about whether "care consistent with goals" can be reliably measured.ConclusionA large, multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed an Organizing Framework and rated the importance of ACP outcome constructs. Top rated outcomes should be used to evaluate the success of ACP initiatives. More research is needed to create reliable and valid measurement tools for the highest rated outcomes, particularly "care consistent with goals."

ContextStandardized outcomes that define successful advance care planning (ACP) are lacking.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to create an Organizing Framework of ACP outcome constructs and rate the importance of these outcomes.MethodsThis study convened a Delphi panel consisting of 52 multidisciplinary, international ACP experts including clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries. We conducted literature reviews and solicited attendee input from five international ACP conferences to identify initial ACP outcome constructs. In five Delphi rounds, we asked panelists to rate patient-centered outcomes on a seven-point "not-at-all" to "extremely important" scale. We calculated means and analyzed panelists' input to finalize an Organizing Framework and outcome rankings.ResultsOrganizing Framework outcome domains included process (e.g., attitudes), actions (e.g., discussions), quality of care (e.g., satisfaction), and health care (e.g., utilization). The top five outcomes included 1) care consistent with goals, mean 6.71 (±SD 0.04); 2) surrogate designation, 6.55 (0.45); 3) surrogate documentation, 6.50 (0.11); 4) discussions with surrogates, 6.40 (0.19); and 5) documents and recorded wishes are accessible when needed 6.27 (0.11). Advance directive documentation was ranked 10th, 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised caution about whether "care consistent with goals" can be reliably measured.ConclusionA large, multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed an Organizing Framework and rated the importance of ACP outcome constructs. Top rated outcomes should be used to evaluate the success of ACP initiatives. More research is needed to create reliable and valid measurement tools for the highest rated outcomes, particularly "care consistent with goals."

ContextDespite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and previous ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a consensus definition of ACP for adults.MethodsWe convened a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary, international ACP experts consisting of 52 clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries and a patient/surrogate advisory committee. We conducted 10 rounds using a modified Delphi method and qualitatively analyzed panelists' input. Panelists identified several themes lacking consensus and iteratively discussed and developed a final consensus definition.ResultsPanelists identified several tensions concerning ACP concepts such as whether the definition should focus on conversations vs. written advance directives; patients' values vs. treatment preferences; current shared decision making vs. future medical decisions; and who should be included in the process. The panel achieved a final consensus one-sentence definition and accompanying goals statement: "Advance care planning is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. The goal of advance care planning is to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness." The panel also described strategies to best support adults in ACP.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed a consensus definition for ACP for adults that can be used to inform implementation and measurement of ACP clinical, research, and policy initiatives.

Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly implemented in oncology and beyond, but a definition of ACP and recommendations concerning its use are lacking. We used a formal Delphi consensus process to help develop a definition of ACP and provide recommendations for its application. Of the 109 experts (82 from Europe, 16 from North America, and 11 from Australia) who rated the ACP definitions and its 41 recommendations, agreement for each definition or recommendation was between 68-100%. ACP was defined as the ability to enable individuals to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, to discuss these goals and preferences with family and health-care providers, and to record and review these preferences if appropriate. Recommendations included the adaptation of ACP based on the readiness of the individual; targeting ACP content as the individual's health condition worsens; and, using trained non-physician facilitators to support the ACP process. We present a list of outcome measures to enable the pooling and comparison of results of ACP studies. We believe that our recommendations can provide guidance for clinical practice, ACP policy, and research.

ContextA validated 82-item Advance Care Planning (ACP) Engagement Survey measures a broad range of behaviors. However, concise surveys are needed.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to validate shorter versions of the survey.MethodsThe survey included 57 process (e.g., readiness) and 25 action items (e.g., discussions). For item reduction, we systematically eliminated questions based on face validity, item nonresponse, redundancy, ceiling effects, and factor analysis. We assessed internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and construct validity with cross-sectional correlations and the ability of the progressively shorter survey versions to detect change one week after exposure to an ACP intervention (Pearson correlation coefficients).ResultsFive hundred one participants (four Canadian and three US sites) were included in item reduction (mean age 69 years [±10], 41% nonwhite). Because of high correlations between readiness and action items, all action items were removed. Because of high correlations and ceiling effects, two process items were removed. Successive factor analysis then created 55-, 34-, 15-, nine-, and four-item versions; 664 participants (from three US ACP clinical trials) were included in validity analysis (age 65 years [±8], 72% nonwhite, 34% Spanish speaking). Cronbach's alphas were high for all versions (four items 0.84-55 items 0.97). Compared with the original survey, cross-sectional correlations were high (four items 0.85; 55 items 0.97) as were delta correlations (four items 0.68; 55 items 0.93).ConclusionShorter versions of the ACP Engagement Survey are valid, internally consistent, and able to detect change across a broad range of ACP behaviors for English and Spanish speakers. Shorter ACP surveys can efficiently measure broad ACP behaviors in research and clinical settings.

Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly implemented in oncology and beyond, but a definition of ACP and recommendations concerning its use are lacking. We used a formal Delphi consensus process to help develop a definition of ACP and provide recommendations for its application. Of the 109 experts (82 from Europe, 16 from North America, and 11 from Australia) who rated the ACP definitions and its 41 recommendations, agreement for each definition or recommendation was between 68–100%. ACP was defined as the ability to enable individuals to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, to discuss these goals and preferences with family and health-care providers, and to record and review these preferences if appropriate. Recommendations included the adaptation of ACP based on the readiness of the individual; targeting ACP content as the individual's health condition worsens; and, using trained non-physician facilitators to support the ACP process. We present a list of outcome measures to enable the pooling and comparison of results of ACP studies. We believe that our recommendations can provide guidance for clinical practice, ACP policy, and research.

Nutrition support is a necessary therapy for critically ill cardiac surgery patients. However, conclusive evidence for this population, consisting of well-conducted clinical trials is lacking. To clarify optimal strategies to improve outcomes, an international multidisciplinary group of 25 experts from different clinical specialties from Germany, Canada, Greece, USA and Russia discussed potential approaches to identify patients who may benefit from nutrition support, when best to initiate nutrition support, and the potential use of pharmaco-nutrition to modulate the inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass. Despite conspicuous knowledge and evidence gaps, a rational nutritional support therapy is presented to benefit patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

ContextDespite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and previous ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a consensus definition of ACP for adults.MethodsWe convened a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary, international ACP experts consisting of 52 clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries and a patient/surrogate advisory committee. We conducted 10 rounds using a modified Delphi method and qualitatively analyzed panelists' input. Panelists identified several themes lacking consensus and iteratively discussed and developed a final consensus definition.ResultsPanelists identified several tensions concerning ACP concepts such as whether the definition should focus on conversations vs. written advance directives; patients' values vs. treatment preferences; current shared decision making vs. future medical decisions; and who should be included in the process. The panel achieved a final consensus one-sentence definition and accompanying goals statement: "Advance care planning is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. The goal of advance care planning is to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness." The panel also described strategies to best support adults in ACP.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed a consensus definition for ACP for adults that can be used to inform implementation and measurement of ACP clinical, research, and policy initiatives.

ContextA validated 82-item Advance Care Planning (ACP) Engagement Survey measures a broad range of behaviors. However, concise surveys are needed.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to validate shorter versions of the survey.MethodsThe survey included 57 process (e.g., readiness) and 25 action items (e.g., discussions). For item reduction, we systematically eliminated questions based on face validity, item nonresponse, redundancy, ceiling effects, and factor analysis. We assessed internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and construct validity with cross-sectional correlations and the ability of the progressively shorter survey versions to detect change one week after exposure to an ACP intervention (Pearson correlation coefficients).ResultsFive hundred one participants (four Canadian and three US sites) were included in item reduction (mean age 69 years [±10], 41% nonwhite). Because of high correlations between readiness and action items, all action items were removed. Because of high correlations and ceiling effects, two process items were removed. Successive factor analysis then created 55-, 34-, 15-, nine-, and four-item versions; 664 participants (from three US ACP clinical trials) were included in validity analysis (age 65 years [±8], 72% nonwhite, 34% Spanish speaking). Cronbach's alphas were high for all versions (four items 0.84-55 items 0.97). Compared with the original survey, cross-sectional correlations were high (four items 0.85; 55 items 0.97) as were delta correlations (four items 0.68; 55 items 0.93).ConclusionShorter versions of the ACP Engagement Survey are valid, internally consistent, and able to detect change across a broad range of ACP behaviors for English and Spanish speakers. Shorter ACP surveys can efficiently measure broad ACP behaviors in research and clinical settings.

Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly implemented in oncology and beyond, but a definition of ACP and recommendations concerning its use are lacking. We used a formal Delphi consensus process to help develop a definition of ACP and provide recommendations for its application. Of the 109 experts (82 from Europe, 16 from North America, and 11 from Australia) who rated the ACP definitions and its 41 recommendations, agreement for each definition or recommendation was between 68-100%. ACP was defined as the ability to enable individuals to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, to discuss these goals and preferences with family and health-care providers, and to record and review these preferences if appropriate. Recommendations included the adaptation of ACP based on the readiness of the individual; targeting ACP content as the individual's health condition worsens; and, using trained non-physician facilitators to support the ACP process. We present a list of outcome measures to enable the pooling and comparison of results of ACP studies. We believe that our recommendations can provide guidance for clinical practice, ACP policy, and research.

Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly implemented in oncology and beyond, but a definition of ACP and recommendations concerning its use are lacking. We used a formal Delphi consensus process to help develop a definition of ACP and provide recommendations for its application. Of the 109 experts (82 from Europe, 16 from North America, and 11 from Australia) who rated the ACP definitions and its 41 recommendations, agreement for each definition or recommendation was between 68–100%. ACP was defined as the ability to enable individuals to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, to discuss these goals and preferences with family and health-care providers, and to record and review these preferences if appropriate. Recommendations included the adaptation of ACP based on the readiness of the individual; targeting ACP content as the individual's health condition worsens; and, using trained non-physician facilitators to support the ACP process. We present a list of outcome measures to enable the pooling and comparison of results of ACP studies. We believe that our recommendations can provide guidance for clinical practice, ACP policy, and research.

Nutrition support is a necessary therapy for critically ill cardiac surgery patients. However, conclusive evidence for this population, consisting of well-conducted clinical trials is lacking. To clarify optimal strategies to improve outcomes, an international multidisciplinary group of 25 experts from different clinical specialties from Germany, Canada, Greece, USA and Russia discussed potential approaches to identify patients who may benefit from nutrition support, when best to initiate nutrition support, and the potential use of pharmaco-nutrition to modulate the inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass. Despite conspicuous knowledge and evidence gaps, a rational nutritional support therapy is presented to benefit patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Nutrition support is a necessary therapy for critically ill cardiac surgery patients. However, conclusive evidence for this population, consisting of well-conducted clinical trials is lacking. To clarify optimal strategies to improve outcomes, an international multidisciplinary group of 25 experts from different clinical specialties from Germany, Canada, Greece, USA and Russia discussed potential approaches to identify patients who may benefit from nutrition support, when best to initiate nutrition support, and the potential use of pharmaco-nutrition to modulate the inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass. Despite conspicuous knowledge and evidence gaps, a rational nutritional support therapy is presented to benefit patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility, acceptability and clinical sensibility of a novel survey, the advance care planning (ACP) Engagement Survey, in various healthcare settings.SettingA target sample of 50 patients from each of primary care, hospital, cancer care and dialysis care settings.ParticipantsA convenience sample of patients without cognitive impairment who could speak and read English was recruited. Patients 50 and older were eligible in primary care; patients 80 and older or 55 and older with clinical markers of advanced chronic disease were recruited in hospital; patients aged 19 and older were recruited in cancer and renal dialysis centres.OutcomesWe assessed feasibility, acceptability and clinical sensibility of the ACP Engagement Survey using a 6-point scale. The ACP Engagement Survey measures ACP processes (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy and readiness) on 5-point Likert scales and actions (yes/no).Results196 patients (38-96 years old, 50.5% women) participated. Mean (±SD) time to administer was 48.8±19.6 min. Mean acceptability scores ranged from 3.2±1.3 in hospital to 4.7±0.9 in primary care, and mean relevance ranged from 3.5±1.0 in hospital to 4.9±0.9 in dialysis centres (p<0.001 for both). The mean process score was 3.1±0.6 and the mean action score was 11.2±5.6 (of a possible 25).ConclusionsThe ACP Engagement Survey demonstrated feasibility and acceptability in outpatient settings but was less feasible and acceptable among hospitalised patients due to length. A shorter version may improve feasibility. Engagement in ACP was low to moderate.

Nutrition support is an integral part of care among critically ill patients. However, critically ill patients are commonly underfed, leading to consequences such as increased length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, time on mechanical ventilation, infectious complications, and mortality. Nevertheless, the prevalence of underfeeding has not resolved since the first description of this problem more than 15 years ago. This may be due to the traditional conservative feeding approaches. A novel feeding protocol (the Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding Protocol in Critically Ill Patients [PEP uP] protocol) was proposed and proven to improve feeding adequacy significantly. However, some of the components in the protocol are controversial and subject to debate. This article is a review of the supporting evidences and some of the controversy associated with each component of the PEP uP protocol.

Nutrition support is an integral part of care among critically ill patients. However, critically ill patients are commonly underfed, leading to consequences such as increased length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, time on mechanical ventilation, infectious complications, and mortality. Nevertheless, the prevalence of underfeeding has not resolved since the first description of this problem more than 15 years ago. This may be due to the traditional conservative feeding approaches. A novel feeding protocol (the Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding Protocol in Critically Ill Patients [PEP uP] protocol) was proposed and proven to improve feeding adequacy significantly. However, some of the components in the protocol are controversial and subject to debate. This article is a review of the supporting evidences and some of the controversy associated with each component of the PEP uP protocol.