Search

Background and Rationale : ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice. Purpose and Objectives : This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting. Methods : An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law. Main Results : The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1 ) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2 ) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3 ) to provide appropriate medical care, 4 ) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5 ) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1 ) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2 ) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3 ) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4 ) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5 ) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6 ) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight. Conclusions : This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

Although growing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment), intensive care unit providers often struggle with how to reliably and consistently incorporate this interprofessional, evidence-based intervention into everyday clinical practice. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, nationwide, multicenter quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies and tracked key performance metrics to overcome barriers to ABCDEF bundle adoption. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the most challenging implementation issues that Collaborative teams experienced, and to provide some practical advice from leading experts on ways to overcome these barriers., (©2019 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Costs of care in the intensive care unit are a frequent area of concern in our current health care system. Utilization of critical care services in the United States, particularly near the end of life, has been steadily increasing and will continue to do so. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common and important complication of critical illness. Patients with ARDS frequently experience prolonged hospitalizations and consume significant health care resources. Many patients are discharged with functional limitations and require significant postdischarge services. These patients have a high susceptibility to new complications which require significant additional health care resources. There is a slowly growing literature on the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of ARDS; despite its high costs, treatment remains a cost-effective intervention by most societal standards. However, when ARDS leads to prolonged mechanical ventilation, treatment may become less cost-effective. In addition, the provision of extracorporeal life support adds another layer of complexity to these cases. Small reductions in intensive care unit length of stay may benefit patients, but they do not lead to significant reductions in overall hospital costs. Early discharge to postacute care facilities can reduce hospital costs but is unlikely to significantly decrease costs for an entire episode of illness. Improved effectiveness of communication between clinicians and patients or their surrogates could help avoid costly interventions with poor expected outcomes. However, the most significant cost-saving interventions are early recognition and treatment of conditions to potentially prevent the development of this serious complication., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

The ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment) improves intensive care unit patient-centered outcomes and promotes interprofessional teamwork and collaboration. The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, multicenter, national quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies to promote effective adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this article is to describe 8 of the most frequently asked questions during the Collaborative and to provide practical advice from leading experts to other institutions implementing the ABCDEF bundle., (©2019 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Despite the increasing proportion of women in U.S. medical schools, there are relatively few women in leadership positions, and a number of recent publications have highlighted many factors that could contribute to gender inequity and inequality in medicine. The Association of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Division Directors, an organization of Division Directors from across the United States, convened a workshop to review data and obtain input from leaders on the state of gender equity in our field. The workshop identified a number of factors that could contribute to gender inequality and inequity: gender climate (including implicit and perceived biases); disproportionate family responsibilities; lack of women in leadership positions; poor retention of women; and lack of gender equality in compensation. The panel members developed a roadmap of concrete recommendations for societies, leaders, and individuals that should promote gender equity to achieve gender equality and improve retention of women in the field of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

Rationale: Information from clinicians about the expected course of the patient's illness is relevant and important for decision-making by surrogates for chronically critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation., Objectives: To observe how surrogates of chronically critically ill patients respond to information about prognosis from palliative care clinicians., Methods: This was a qualitative analysis of a consecutive sample of audio-recorded meetings from a larger, multisite, randomized trial of structured informational and supportive meetings led by a palliative care physician and nurse practitioner for surrogates of patients in medical intensive care units with chronic critical illness (i.e., adults mechanically ventilated for ≥7 days and expected to remain ventilated and survive for ≥72 h)., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 66 audio-recorded meetings involving 51 intervention group surrogates for 43 patients were analyzed using grounded theory. Six main categories of surrogate responses to prognostic information were identified: (1) receptivity, (2) deflection/rejection, (3) emotion, (4) characterization of patient, (5) consideration of surrogate role, and (6) mobilization of support. Surrogates responded in multiple and even antithetical ways, within and across meetings., Conclusions: Prognostic disclosure by skilled clinician communicators evokes a repertoire of responses from surrogates for the chronically critically ill. Recognition of these response patterns may help all clinicians better communicate their support to patients and families facing chronic critical illness and inform interventions to support surrogate decision-makers in intensive care units. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01230099).

Background: Many advances in health care fail to reach patients. Implementation science is the study of novel approaches to mitigate this evidence-to-practice gap., Methods: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) created a multidisciplinary ad hoc committee to develop a research statement on implementation science in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. The committee used an iterative consensus process to define implementation science and review the use of conceptual frameworks to guide implementation science for the pulmonary, critical care, and sleep community and to explore how professional medical societies such as the ATS can promote implementation science., Results: The committee defined implementation science as the study of the mechanisms by which effective health care interventions are either adopted or not adopted in clinical and community settings. The committee also distinguished implementation science from the act of implementation. Ideally, implementation science should include early and continuous stakeholder involvement and the use of conceptual frameworks (i.e., models to systematize the conduct of studies and standardize the communication of findings). Multiple conceptual frameworks are available, and we suggest the selection of one or more frameworks on the basis of the specific research question and setting. Professional medical societies such as the ATS can have an important role in promoting implementation science. Recommendations for professional societies to consider include: unifying implementation science activities through a single organizational structure, linking front-line clinicians with implementation scientists, seeking collaborations to prioritize and conduct implementation science studies, supporting implementation science projects through funding opportunities, working with research funding bodies to set the research agenda in the field, collaborating with external bodies responsible for health care delivery, disseminating results of implementation science through scientific journals and conferences, and teaching the next generation about implementation science through courses and other media., Conclusions: Implementation science plays an increasingly important role in health care. Through support of implementation science, the ATS and other professional medical societies can work with other stakeholders to lead this effort.

The number of chronically critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation and receiving a tracheostomy is steadily increasing. Early tracheostomy in patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation has been proposed to decrease duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay, reduce mortality, and improve patient comfort. However, these benefits have been difficult to demonstrate in clinical trials. So how does one determine the appropriate timing for tracheostomy placement in your patient? Here we review the potential benefits and consequences of tracheostomy, the available evidence for tracheostomy timing, communication surrounding the tracheostomy decision, and a patient-centered approach to tracheostomy. Patients requiring > 10 days of mechanical ventilation who are expected to survive their hospitalization likely benefit from tracheostomy, but protocols involving routine early tracheostomy placement do not improve patient outcomes. However, patients with neurologic injury, provided they have a good prognosis for meaningful recovery, may benefit from early tracheostomy. In chronically critically ill patients with poor prognosis, tracheostomy is unlikely to provide benefit and should only be pursued if it is consistent with the patient's values, goals, and preferences. In this setting, communication with patients and surrogates regarding tracheostomy and prognosis becomes paramount. For the foreseeable future, decisions surrounding tracheostomy will remain relevant and challenging., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Rationale: Surrogates of critically ill patients often have inaccurate expectations about prognosis. Yet there is little research on how intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians should discuss prognosis, and existing expert opinion-based recommendations give only general guidance that has not been validated with surrogate decision makers., Objective: To determine the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding how prognostic information should be conveyed in critical illness., Methods: This was a multicenter study at three academic medical centers in California, Pennsylvania, and Washington. One hundred eighteen key stakeholders completed in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants included 47 surrogates of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome; 45 clinicians working in study ICUs, including physicians, nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers; and 26 experts in health communication, decision science, ethics, family-centered care, geriatrics, healthcare disparities, palliative care, psychology, psychiatry, and critical care., Measurements and Main Results: There was broad support among surrogates for existing expert recommendations, including truthful prognostic disclosure, emotional support, tailoring the disclosure strategy to each family's needs, and checking for understanding. In addition, stakeholders offered suggestions that add specificity to existing recommendations, including: (1) In addition to conveying prognostic estimates, clinicians should help families "see the prognosis for themselves" by showing families radiographic images and explaining the clinical significance of physical manifestations of severe disease at the bedside. (2) Many physicians did not support using numeric estimates to convey prognosis to families, whereas many surrogates, clinicians from other disciplines, and experts believed numbers could be helpful. (3) Clinicians should conceptualize prognostic communication as an iterative process that begins with a preliminary mention of the possibility of death early in the ICU stay and becomes more detailed as the clinical situation develops. (4) Although prognostic information should be initially disclosed by physicians, other members of the multidisciplinary team-nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers-should be given explicit role responsibilities to reinforce physicians' prognostications and help families process a poor prognosis emotionally., Conclusions: Family members, clinicians, and experts identified specific communication behaviors that clinicians should use to discuss prognosis in the critical care setting. These findings extend existing opinion-based recommendations and should guide interventions to improve communication about prognosis in ICUs.

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR)., Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine., Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine was convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a review by American Thoracic Society committees and assemblies., Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others)., Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER.

This article describes the increasingly common phenomenon of prolonged mechanical ventilation in the context of the transition between the acute care hospital and post-acute care. Prolonged mechanical ventilation or chronic critical illness is associated with hospital mortality in the range of 20 to 40%, with median hospital length of stay ranging from 14 to 60 days. Fewer than 10% of patients are discharged home, and most hospital survivors require institutionalized post-acute care in the form of long-term acute care, skilled nursing facilities, or inpatient rehabilitation. Acute hospital readmission is common. Because of prolonged functional disabilities and multiple underlying comorbid conditions, overall 1 year mortality for prolonged mechanical ventilation patients ranges from 50 to 60%. Survivors experience significant functional limitations. The prolonged institutional care and poor long-term outcomes of these patients bring into question the cost-effectiveness of prolonged mechanical ventilation after acute illness, especially for patients with poor long-term prognoses. New measures to facilitate assessments of long-term prognosis and improve communication with surrogate decision makers may reduce the amount of ineffective care for some patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

The current economic and political climate places future funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal biomedical research programs in jeopardy. This Pulmonary Perspective seeks to arm the diverse membership of the American Thoracic Society with the information necessary to understand and articulate the value of biomedical research in their respective communities. We provide a historical overview of NIH funding in general and of allocations directed at respiratory-related research in particular. We argue that this is in fact an opportune time to expand investments in biomedical research and that doing so makes sense from the perspectives of improving health, curtailing health care expenditures, and job creation and economic growth. We further argue that current levels of allocation toward respiratory research are incommensurate with the medical, economic, and societal burden of respiratory disease in the United States. Respiratory disease currently is the only leading cause of death that has risen, rather than fallen, in recent decades. Declines in the burden of cardiovascular disease and cancer followed substantial increases in research funding, and slowing the rising burden of respiratory disease will likewise require a greatly expanded investment in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep research.

Long-term acute care hospitals (LTACs) are an increasingly common discharge destination for patients recovering from intensive care. In this article the authors use U.S. Medicare claims data to examine regional- and hospital-level variation in LTAC utilization after intensive care to determine factors associated with their use. Using hierarchical regression models to control for patient characteristics, this study found wide variation in LTAC utilization across hospitals, even controlling for LTAC access within a region. Several hospital characteristics were independently associated with increasing LTAC utilization, including increasing hospital size, for-profit ownership, academic teaching status, and colocation of the LTAC within an acute care hospital. These findings highlight the need for research into LTAC admission criteria and the incentives driving variation in LTAC utilization across hospitals.

Although advances in intensive care have enabled more patients to survive an acute critical illness, they also have created a large and growing population of chronically critically ill patients with prolonged dependence on mechanical ventilation and other intensive care therapies. Chronic critical illness is a devastating condition: mortality exceeds that for most malignancies, and functional dependence persists for most survivors. Costs of treating the chronically critically ill in the United States already exceed $20 billion and are increasing. In this article, we describe the constellation of clinical features that characterize chronic critical illness. We discuss the outcomes of this condition including ventilator liberation, mortality, and physical and cognitive function, noting that comparisons among cohorts are complicated by variation in defining criteria and care settings. We also address burdens for families of the chronically critically ill and the difficulties they face in decision-making about continuation of intensive therapies. Epidemiology and resource utilization issues are reviewed to highlight the impact of chronic critical illness on our health care system. Finally, we summarize the best available evidence for managing chronic critical illness, including ventilator weaning, nutritional support, rehabilitation, and palliative care, and emphasize the importance of efforts to prevent the transition from acute to chronic critical illness. As steps forward for the field, we suggest a specific definition of chronic critical illness, advocate for the creation of a research network encompassing a broad range of venues for care, and highlight areas for future study of the comparative effectiveness of different treatment venues and approaches.

Rationale: Pay-for-performance is a model for health care financing that seeks to link reimbursement to quality. The American Thoracic Society and its members have a significant stake in the development of pay-for-performance programs., Objectives: To develop an official ATS policy statement addressing the role of pay-for-performance in pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine., Methods: The statement was developed by the ATS Health Policy Committee using an iterative consensus process including an expert workshop and review by ATS committees and assemblies., Measurements and Main Results: Pay-for-performance is increasingly utilized by health care purchasers including the United States government. Published studies generally show that programs result in small but measurable gains in quality, although the data are heterogeneous. Pay-for-performance may result in several negative consequences, including the potential to increase costs, worsen health outcomes, and widen health disparities, among others. Future research should be directed at developing reliable and valid performance measures, increasing the efficacy of pay-for-performance programs, minimizing negative unintended consequences, and examining issues of costs and cost-effectiveness. The ATS and its members can play a key role in the design and evaluation of these programs by advancing the science of performance measurement, regularly developing quality metrics alongside clinical practice guidelines, and working with payors to make performance improvement a routine part of clinical practice., Conclusions: Pay-for-performance programs will expand in the coming years. Pulmonary, critical care and sleep practitioners can use these programs as an opportunity to partner with purchasers to improve health care quality.

With the development of new technologies and drugs, health care is becoming increasingly complex and expensive. Governments and health care providers around the world devote a large proportion of their budgets to maintaining quality of care. During 2007, Critical Care published several papers that highlight important aspects of critical care management, which can be subdivided into structure, processes and outcomes, including costs. Great emphasis was given to quality of life after intensive care unit stay, especially the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder. Significant attention was also given to staffing level, optimization of intensive care unit capacity, and drug cost-effectiveness, particularly that of recombinant human activated protein C. Managing costs and providing high-quality care simultaneously are emerging challenges that we must understand and meet.

We studied 118 patients with prolonged critical illness to determine if there would be a difference in outcome between patients managed by university-based (UB) or community-based (CB) intensivists. Patients consecutively admitted to a long-term acute care hospital were assigned in an arbitrary manner to the UB service or CB service. Patient survival, length of stay, and success and length of time required for liberation from mechanical ventilation (MV) were compared using survival analysis, logistic regression, and analysis of variance techniques. Patients on the UB service were liberated from MV in 32% fewer days (39 versus 57 d, p = 0.02) and were marginally more likely to be liberated from MV (46% versus 30%, p = 0.14). UB physicians were more likely to write do not resuscitate orders (59% versus 33%, p < 0.01) and to withdraw life-sustaining therapy (12% versus 2%, p = 0.09). There were no detectable differences in survival between the two groups. Estimated reimbursement for CB physicians ($6,797/patient) was 46% greater than for UB physicians ($4,651/patient) for discharged patients (p = 0.03). We conclude that patients experiencing prolonged critical illness may experience different outcomes based on their physician provider. In our study, patients were liberated more quickly from MV, were withdrawn from life support more readily, and were managed at lower cost by UB intensivists than by CB intensivists.