Search

Background End-of-life decision-making tools are used to establish a shared understanding among patients, families and healthcare providers about medical treatment and goals of care. This systematic review aimed to understand the availability and effect of end-of-life decision-making tools on: (i) goals of care and advance care planning; (ii) patient and/or family satisfaction and well-being; and (iii) healthcare utilization among racial/ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities. Methods A search was conducted in four electronic databases (inception to June 2021). Articles were screened for eligibility using pre-specified criteria. We focused on adult patients (aged ≥18 years) and included primary research articles that used quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs. Complementary quality assessment tools were used to generate quality scores for individual studies. Extracted data were synthesized by outcome measure for each type of tool, and an overall description of findings showed the range of effects. Results Among 14,316 retrieved articles, 37 articles were eligible. We found that advance care planning programs (eleven studies), healthcare provider-led interventions (four studies), and linguistically-tailored decision aids (three studies) increased the proportion of patients documenting advance care plans. Educational tools (three studies) strongly reduced patient preferences for life-prolonging care. Palliative care consultations (three studies) were strongly associated with do-not-resuscitate orders. Advance care planning programs (three studies) significantly influenced the quality of patient-clinician communication and healthcare provider-led interventions (two studies) significantly influenced perceived patient quality of life. Conclusion This review identified several end-of-life decision-making tools with impact on patient and family-related outcomes of care among ethnocultural minorities. Advance care planning programs, healthcare provider-led interventions and decision aids increased documentation of end-of-life care plans and do-not-resuscitate orders, and educational tools reduced preferences for life-prolonging care. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of tools on healthcare utilization, and with specific patient population subgroups across different illness trajectories and healthcare settings.

Background Recently immigrated and ethnic minority patients in Ontario, Canada are more likely to receive aggressive life-prolonging treatment at the end of life in comparison to other patients. To explore this finding further, this survey-based observational study aimed to evaluate satisfaction with the quality of end-of-life care for patients from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds. Methods The End-of-Life Satisfaction Survey was used to measure satisfaction with the quality of inpatient end-of-life care from the perspective of next-of-kin of recently deceased patients at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario (between March 2012 to May 2019). The primary outcome was the global rating of satisfaction. Associations with patient ethnicity, patient religion, level of religiosity/spirituality, language/communication barriers, and location of death were assessed using univariable and multivariable modified Poisson regression. Secondary outcomes included differences in satisfaction and rates of dying in intensive care units (ICU) among patient population subgroups, and identification of high priority areas for quality-of-care improvement. Results There were 1,543 respondents. Patient ethnicities included Caucasian (68.2%), Mediterranean (10.5%), East Asian (7.6%), South Asian (3.5%), Southeast Asian (2.1%) and Middle Eastern (2.0%); religious affiliations included Christianity (66.6%), Judaism (12.3%) and Islam (2.1%), among others. Location of death was most commonly in ICU (38.4%), hospital wards (37.0%) or long-term care (20.0%). The mean(SD) rating of satisfaction score was 8.30(2.09) of 10. After adjusting for other covariates, satisfaction with quality of end-of-life care was higher among patients dying in ICU versus other locations (relative risk [RR] 1.51, 95%CI 1.05-2.19, p=0.028), lower among those who experienced language/communication barriers (RR 0.49 95%CI 0.23-1.06, p=0.069), and lower for Muslim patients versus other religious affiliations (RR 0.46, 95%CI 0.21-1.02, p=0.056). Survey items identified as highest priority areas for quality-of-care improvement included communication and information giving; illness management; and healthcare provider characteristics such as emotional support, doctor availability and time spent with patient/family. Conclusion Satisfaction with quality-of-care at the end of life was higher among patients dying in ICU and lower among Muslim patients or when there were communication barriers between families and healthcare providers. These findings highlight the importance of measuring and improving end-of-life care across the ethnocultural spectrum.

To lead effectively within their organizations, nurse executives must possess quality and safety literacy and be able to engage and motivate clinicians to participate in safety and quality initiatives. Given the paucity of research in Canada, a study was undertaken to explore nurse executives' understanding of the key concepts and strategies associated with patient safety and quality improvement, and their engagement with patient safety and quality improvement in their hospitals and healthcare systems. This study used an exploratory qualitative design with a content analysis approach on 20 nurse executives working in hospitals in Ontario. Three key themes emerged from the narrative data set including: (1) being a strategic and system thinker while possessing the emotional intelligence to influence staff; (2) building credibility and relationships with point-of-care staff, board of directors, and leadership team and (3) creating a culture of safety and high reliability. Study findings can be useful in informing future learning opportunities for nurse executives and nurses leaders at all levels to enhance their quality and safety literacy.

BackgroundPrevention of healthcare-associated urinary tract infection (UTI) has been the focus of a national effort, yet appropriate indications for insertion and removal of urinary catheters (UC) among surgical patients remain poorly defined.MethodsWe developed and implemented a standardised approach to perioperative UC use to reduce postsurgical UTI including standard criteria for catheter insertion, training of staff to insert UC using sterile technique and standardised removal in the operating room and surgical unit using a nurse-initiated medical directive. We performed an interrupted time series analysis up to 2 years following intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who developed postsurgical UTI within 30 days as measured by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). Process measures included monthly UC insertions, removals in the operating room and UC days per patient-days on surgical units.ResultsAt baseline, 22.5% of patients were catheterised for surgery, none were removed in the operating room and catheter-days per patient-days were 17.4% on surgical units. Following implementation of intervention, monthly catheter removal in the operating room immediately increased (range 12.2%–30.0%) while monthly UC insertion decreased more slowly before being sustained below baseline for 12 months (range 8.4%–15.6%). Monthly catheter-days per patient-days decreased to 8.3% immediately following intervention with a sustained shift below the mean in the final 8 months. Postsurgical UTI decreased from 2.5% (95% CI 2.0-3.1%) to 1.4% (95% CI 1.1-1.9; p=0.002) during the intervention period.ConclusionsStandardised perioperative UC practices resulted in measurable improvement in postsurgical UTI. These appropriateness criteria for perioperative UC use among a broad range of surgical services could inform best practices for hospitals participating in ACS NSQIP.

BackgroundLittle data exists addressing satisfaction with end-of-life care among hospitalized patients, as they and their family members are systematically excluded from routine satisfaction surveys. It is imperative that we closely examine patient and institution factors associated with quality end-of-life care and determine high-priority target areas for quality improvement.MethodsBetween September 1, 2010 and January 1, 2012 the Canadian Health care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) Bereavement Questionnaire was mailed to the next-of-kin of recently deceased inpatients to seek factors associated with satisfaction with end-of-life care. The primary outcome was the global rating of satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included rates of actual versus preferred location of death, associations between demographic factors and global satisfaction, and identification of targets for quality improvement.ResultsResponse rate was 33% among 275 valid addresses. Overall, 67.4% of respondents were very or completely satisfied with the overall quality of care their relative received. However, 71.4% of respondents who thought their relative did not die in their preferred location favoured an out-of-hospital location of death. A common location of death was the intensive care unit (45.7%); however, this was not the preferred location of death for 47.6% of such patients. Multivariate Poisson regression analysis showed respondents who believed their relative died in their preferred location were 1.7 times more likely to be satisfied with the end-of-life care that was provided (p = 0.001). Items identified as high-priority targets for improvement included: relationships with, and characteristics of health care professionals; illness management; communication; and end-of-life decision-making.InterpretationNearly three-quarters of recently deceased inpatients would have preferred an out-of-hospital death. Intensive care units were a common, but not preferred, location of in-hospital deaths. Family satisfaction with end-of-life care was strongly associated with their relative dying in their preferred location. Improved communication regarding end-of-life care preferences should be a high-priority quality improvement target.