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]

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.

Purpose: Determine whether there are unique patterns to the urine biochemistry profile in septic compared with non-septic acute kidney injury (AKI) and whether urinary biochemistry predicts worsening AKI, need for renal replacement therapy and mortality. Materials and Methods: Prospective cohort study of critically ill patients with septic and non-septic AKI, defined by the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End-Stage) criteria. Urine biochemistry parameters were compared between septic and non-septic AKI and were correlated with neutrophil gelatinaseassociated lipocalin (NGAL), worsening AKI, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and mortality. Results: Eighty-three patients were enrolled, 43 (51.8%) with sepsis. RIFLE classwas not different between groups (P = .43). Urine sodium (UNa) b 20 mmol/L, fractional excretion of sodium (FeNa) b1%, and fractional excretion of urea (FeU) b 35% were observed in 25.3%, 57.8%, and 33.7%, respectively. Septic AKI had lower UNa compared with non-septic AKI (P = .04). There were no differences in FeNa or FeU between groups. Urine NGALwas higher for FeNa.1%compared to FeNab1%(177.4 ng/mL [31.9-956.5] vs 48.0 ng/mL [21.1-232.4], P = .04). FeNa showed low correlation with urine NGAL (P = .05) and plasma NGAL (P = .14). There was poor correlation between FeU and urine NGAL (P =.70) or plasmaNGAL (P = .41). UNa, FeNa, and FeU showed poor discrimination for worsening AKI, RRT and mortality. Conclusion: Urine biochemical profiles do not discriminate septic and non-septicAKI. UNa, FeNa, and FeU do not reliably predict biomarker release, worsening AKI, RRT ormortality. These data imply limited utility for these measures in clinical practice in critically ill patients with AKI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which described the characteristics, treatment and outcomes of critically ill patients in Canada with 2009 influenza A(H1N1) infection. The study used 168 critically ill patients with 2009 influenza A(H1N1) infection in various Canadian adult and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) during the period April 16-August 12, 2009. Primary outcome measures for the study were 28-day and 90-day mortality, while secondary measures included frequency and duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of stay in the ICU. Occurrence of critical illness in 215 patients with community-acquired 2009 influenza A(H1N1) infection was observed in the study. It also concluded that critical illness due to the virus has occurred rapidly after hospital admission.

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]