Search

Objectives: The pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score was designed to track illness severity and predict mortality in critically ill children. Most commonly, pSOFA at a point in time is used to assess a static patient condition. However, this approach has a significant drawback because it fails to consider any changes in a patients' condition during their PICU stay and, especially, their response to initial critical care treatment. We aimed to evaluate the performance of longitudinal pSOFA scores for predicting mortality., Design: Single-center, retrospective cohort study., Setting: Quaternary 40-bed PICU., Patients: All patients admitted to the PICU between 2015 and 2021 with at least 24 hours of ICU stay., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: We calculated daily pSOFA scores up to 30 days, or until death or discharge from the PICU, if earlier. We used the joint longitudinal and time-to-event data model for the dynamic prediction of 30-day in-hospital mortality. The dataset, which included 9146 patients with a 30-day in-hospital mortality of 2.6%, was divided randomly into training (75%) and validation (25%) subsets, and subjected to 40 repeated stratified cross-validations. We used dynamic area under the curve (AUC) to evaluate the discriminative performance of the model. Compared with the admission-day pSOFA score, AUC for predicting mortality between days 5 and 30 was improved on average by 6.4% (95% CI, 6.3-6.6%) using longitudinal pSOFA scores from the first 3 days and 9.2% (95% CI, 9.0-9.5%) using scores from the first 5 days., Conclusions: Compared with admission-day pSOFA score, longitudinal pSOFA scores improved the accuracy of mortality prediction in PICU patients at a single center. The pSOFA score has the potential to be used dynamically for the evaluation of patient conditions., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies.)

Objective: To develop, deploy, and evaluate an intervention designed to identify and mitigate conflict in decision making in the intensive care unit., Design: Nonrandomized, controlled trial., Setting: Seven intensive care units at four Boston teaching hospitals., Patients: A total of 1,752 critically ill patients, including 873 study cases analyzed here., Intervention: Social workers interviewed families of patients deemed at high risk for decisional conflict and provided feedback to the clinical team, who then implemented measures to address the problems identified., Measurements and Main Results: Patient or surrogate satisfaction with intensive care unit care and the probability of choosing a specific plan for treatment in the intensive care unit was studied. Inclusion criteria identified 873 patients at risk for decisional conflict. Thirty-nine percent of the patients in the intervention phase of the study (172 patients) received the intervention. In multivariate analyses, receiving the intervention significantly increased the likelihood of deciding to forgo resuscitation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.81, p =.017), the likelihood of choosing a treatment plan for comfort-care only (OR = 1.94, p =.018), and the likelihood of choosing an aggressive-care treatment plan (OR = 2.30, p =.002). Receiving the intervention did not significantly affect overall satisfaction with the care provided (OR = 0.68, p =.14), satisfaction with the amount of information provided (OR = 0.86, p =.44), or satisfaction with the degree of involvement in decision making (OR = 0.84, p =.54)., Conclusions: Although there was no impact on patient or surrogate satisfaction with care provided in the intensive care unit, the intervention did facilitate deliberative decision making in cases deemed at high risk for conflict. The lessons learned from the experience with this intervention should be helpful in ongoing efforts to improve care and to achieve outcomes desired by critically ill patients, their families, and critical care clinicians.