Search

Physicians, patients, and families alike perceive a need to improve how goals of care (GOC) decisions occur in chronic critical illness (CCI), but little is currently known about this decision-making process. How do intensivists from various health systems facilitate decision-making about GOC for patients with CCI? What are barriers to, and facilitators of, this decision-making process? We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of intensivists from the United States and Canada using a mental models approach adapted from decision science. We analyzed transcripts inductively using qualitative description. We interviewed 29 intensivists from six institutions. Participants across all sites described GOC decision-making in CCI as a complex, longitudinal, and iterative process that involved substantial preparatory work, numerous stakeholders, and multiple family meetings. Intensivists required considerable time to collect information on prior events and conversations, and to arrive at a prognostic consensus with other involved physicians prior to meeting with families. Many intensivists stressed the importance of scheduling multiple family meetings to build trust and relationships prior to explicitly discussing GOC. Physician-identified barriers to GOC decision-making included 1-week staffing models, limited time and cognitive bandwidth, difficulty eliciting patient values, and interpersonal challenges with care team members or families. Potential facilitators included scheduled family meetings at regular intervals, greater interprofessional involvement in decisions, and consistent messaging from care team members. Intensivists described a complex time- and labor-intensive group process to achieve GOC decision-making in CCI. System-level interventions that improve how information is shared between physicians and decrease logistical and relational barriers to timely and consistent communication are key to improving GOC decision-making in CCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To provide a 360-degree description of ICU-to-ward transfers.Methods: Prospective cohort study of 451 adults transferred from a medical-surgical ICU to a hospital ward in 10 Canadian hospitals July 2014-January 2016. Transfer processes documented in the medical record. Patient (or delegate) and provider (ICU/ward physician/nurse) perspectives solicited by survey 24-72 h after transfer.Results: Medical records (100%) and survey responses (ICU physicians-80%, ICU nurses-80%, ward physicians-46%, ward nurses-64%, patients-74%) were available for most transfers. The median time from initiation to completion of transfer was 25 h (IQR 6-52). ICU physicians and nurses reported communicating with counterparts via telephone (78 and 75%) when transfer was requested (82 and 24%) or accepted (31 and 59%) and providing more elements of clinical information than ward physicians (mean 4.7 vs. 3.9, p < 0.001) and nurses (5.0 vs. 4.4, p < 0.001) reported receiving. Patients were more likely to report satisfaction with the transfer when they received more information (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18-1.48), had their questions addressed (OR 3.96, 95% CI 1.33-11.84), met the ward physician prior to transfer (OR 4.61, 95% CI 2.90-7.33), and were assessed by a nurse within 1 h of ward arrival (OR 4.70, 95% CI 2.29-9.66). Recommendations for improvement included having a documented care plan travel with the patient (all stakeholders), standardized face-to-face handover (physicians), avoiding transfers at shift change (nurses) and informing patients about pending transfers in advance (patients).Conclusions: ICU-to-ward transfers are characterized by failures of patient flow and communication; experienced differently by patients, ICU/ward physicians and nurses, with distinct suggestions for improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study conducted to describe perspectives of family members about care provided to patients who were aged 80 years or over in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) across Canada. Topics discussed include study procedure, statistical analysis of the study and results of the study, which reveal incongruity between family values and preferences for end-of-life care and actual care received for very elderly patients.

Objective: Effective communication between clinicians is essential for seamless discharge of patients between care settings. Yet, discharge summaries are commonly not available and incomplete. We implemented and evaluated a structured electronic health record-embedded electronic discharge (eDischarge) summary tool for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward.Design: Multiple baseline trial with randomized and staggered implementation.Setting: Adult medical-surgical ICUs at four acute care hospitals serving a single Canadian city.Patients: Health records of patients 18 years old or older, in the ICU 24 hours or longer, and discharged from the ICU to an in-hospital patient ward between February 12, 2018, and June 30, 2019.Intervention: A structured electronic note (ICU eDischarge tool) with predefined fields (e.g., diagnosis) embedded in the hospital-wide electronic health information system.Measurements and Main Results: We compared the percent of timely (available at discharge) and complete (included goals of care designation, diagnosis, list of active issues, active medications) discharge summaries pre and post implementation using mixed effects logistic regression models. After implementing the ICU eDischarge tool, there was an immediate and sustained increase in the proportion of patients discharged from ICU with timely and complete discharge summaries from 10.8% (preimplementation period) to 71.1% (postimplementation period) (adjusted odds ratio, 32.43; 95% CI, 18.22-57.73). No significant changes were observed in rapid response activation, cardiopulmonary arrest, death in hospital, ICU readmission, and hospital length of stay following ICU discharge. Preventable (60.1 vs 5.7 per 1,000 d; p = 0.023), but not nonpreventable (27.3 vs 40.2 per 1,000d; p = 0.54), adverse events decreased post implementation. Clinicians perceived the eDischarge tool to produce a higher quality discharge process.Conclusions: Implementation of an electronic tool was associated with more timely and complete discharge summaries for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many healthcare workers are concerned about the provision of nonbeneficial treatment in the acute care setting. We sought to explore the perceptions of acute care practitioners to determine whether they perceived nonbeneficial treatment to be a problem, to generate an acceptable definition of nonbeneficial treatment, to learn about their perceptions of the impact and causes of nonbeneficial treatment, and the ways that they feel could reduce or resolve nonbeneficial treatment. Design: National, bilingual, cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of nursing and medical staff who provide direct patient care in acute medical wards or ICUs in Canada. Main Results: We received 688 responses (response rate 61%) from 11 sites. Seventy-four percent of respondents were nurses. Eighty-two percent of respondents believe that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate. The most acceptable definitions of nonbeneficial treatment were "advanced curative/life-prolonging treatments that would almost certainly result in a quality of life that the patient has previously stated that he/she would not want" (88% agreement) and "advanced curative/ life-prolonging treatments that are not consistent with the goals of care (as indicated by the patient)" (83% agreement). Respondents most commonly believed that nonbeneficial treatment was caused by substitute decision makers who do not understand the limitations of treatment, or who cannot accept a poor prognosis (90% agreement for each cause), and 52% believed that nonbeneficial treatment was "often" or "always" continued until the patient died or was discharged from hospital. Respondents believed that nonbeneficial treatment was a common problem with a negative impact on all stakeholders (> 80%) and perceived that improved advance care planning and communication training would be the most effective (92% and 88%, respectively) and morally acceptable (95% and 92%, respectively) means to resolve the problem of nonbeneficial treatment. Conclusions: Canadian nurses and physicians perceive that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate, and that we need to adopt new techniques of resolving nonbeneficial treatment. The most promising strategies to reduce nonbeneficial treatment are felt to be improved advance care planning and communication training for healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]