Search

Objective: To determine whether there is variability in the structure and process of ventilatory care in intensive care units (ICUs) of the hospitals of Southwestern Ontario.Design: Self-administered questionnaire-based survey.Setting: ICUs of selected community and teaching hospitals of Southwestern Ontario.Participants: Head of respiratory therapy service of respective hospitals; in those hospitals without respiratory therapists, the ICU nurse manager.Intervention: Self-administered questionnaire.Outcome Measure(s): The availability of different models of ventilators and respiratory therapist and physician coverage were assessed. In addition, the use of clinical practice guidelines, respiratory therapists, and the nursing role in ventilatory care were determined.Results: In general, the structure of ventilatory care, including availability of different modes of ventilation, and coverage by respiratory therapists and physicians was more comprehensive in larger hospitals. However, the availability of some modes of ventilation varied more than expected among hospitals of comparable size. Similarly, variability in the process of ventilatory care, defined by the availability of clinical practice guidelines and the roles of respiratory therapists varied both within and among hospitals of different size.Conclusions: The structure and process of ventilatory care in this sample of Southwestern Ontario ICUs was found to be variable. Not all this variability could be accounted for by hospital size, suggesting a potential for improvement in overall ventilatory care. Further study is required before any specific recommendations can be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine interobserver reliability of the Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and identify major causes of variability in data collection., Design: Descriptive, comparative analysis., Setting: Nine intensive care units in two teaching and six community hospitals, Subjects: A random sample of 342 patient records selected from a network database., Intervention: None., Measurements and Main Results: Data were reabstracted and compared with the original records. Individual physiologic points derived from the APACHE II scoring system (instead of the actual physiologic values) were compared using the kappa statistic. Paired measurements of the continuous variables were compared using the interclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. Excellent agreement was found in most demographic, admission, and discharge data. The system failure requiring intensive care unit admission was consistently identified by both data collectors in 88% of cases, but only 66% agreed on the exact admitting diagnosis. For APACHE II score components, the kappa statistic ranged from 0.315 for the Glasgow Coma Scale point to 0.976 for the age point. Significant disagreement regarding the probability of death derived from the APACHE II model was evident in some patient records. Overall agreement among groups of patients regarding the APACHE II score was good, however, with no significant difference in the mean score (20.2 vs. 20.1; p = .758). The predicted mortality from the reabstracted data was 30%, similar to the 27% predicted mortality from the original data (p = .380)., Conclusion: Reliability of data collection varied widely in different components of the APACHE II probability-of-death model. Significant discrepancies in some components suggested a lack of explicit definitions and timing for consistent data collection between institutions or between data collectors. Nonetheless, variability resulting from data collection appears to be randomly distributed, so that comparisons of group means are valid.

Objectives: To compare the incidence of withdrawal or withholding of life support (WD/WHLS), and to identify similarities and differences in the process of the withdrawal of life support (WDLS) between teaching and community hospitals' intensive care units (ICUs)., Design: Prospective cohort study, with some data obtained by retrospective chart review., Setting: The ICUs of three teaching hospitals and six community hospitals., Patients: All patients who died in these nine ICUs over a 6-mo period., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Data on admitting diagnosis, cause of death, mode of death (death despite active treatment, withdrawal or withholding of life support), those initiating and involved in WDLS, and modalities of life support withdrawn were gathered for patients dying in the ICU over a 6-mo period. One hundred sixty patients in community hospitals and 292 in teaching hospitals died in their respective ICUs over the 6-mo period. We found a difference in the distribution of mode of death between community hospitals and teaching hospitals, resulting from a greater proportion of patients dying as a result of withholding life support in community hospitals (11.9% vs. 3.8% withheld, respectively, p = .004). Among the six community hospitals and three teaching hospitals, we found a difference in the proportion of patients dying despite active treatment compared with those dying as a result of WD/WHLS (p = .042 and p = .044, respectively). Initiation of WDLS by physicians was more frequent at teaching hospitals (81% vs. 61%, p = .0005), while families more commonly initiated WDLS at community hospitals (34% vs. 19%, p = .005). A greater proportion of patients in teaching hospitals were receiving mechanical ventilation (99% vs. 89%) and vasopressors (76% vs. 65%) before WDLS. Similar proportions had mechanical ventilation withdrawn (68% and 74%, community hospitals and teaching hospitals, respectively), while there was a trend for fewer patients in community hospitals to have vasopressors withdrawn (56% vs. 70%, p = .082). The time to death after WDLS had begun was longer in community hospitals compared with teaching hospitals (0.74 +/- 1.38 days vs. 0.27 +/- 0.79 [SD] days, p = .0028)., Conclusions: The incidence of WD/WHLS was similar in community hospitals and teaching hospitals; however, withholding of life support was more common in community hospitals. The process of WDLS appears to differ between community hospitals and teaching hospitals.

Objectives: To determine the proportion of patients who died as a result of the withdrawal or withholding of life support (WD/WHLS) in the intensive care units (ICUs) of three teaching hospitals and to describe the process involved by determining: a) why the decision was made to withdraw support (WDLS); b) when WDLS took place; and c) how the WDLS process was conducted., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Three university-affiliated ICUs., Patients: Four hundred nineteen patients who died in one of three academic, tertiary care ICUs over a 1-yr period., Interventions: Retrospective chart review. Data collected included age, gender, admitting diagnoses, comorbid disease, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and mode of death (brain death, death due to withholding of life support, death due to WDLS, or death despite ongoing therapy). For those patients dying due to WDLS, the reason for WDLS, person initiating discussion, timing of WDLS, degree of organ dysfunction, order of withdrawal of life support modalities, and the use of sedatives and analgesics were recorded., Measurements and Main Results: Seventy percent of patients died by WD/WHLS and 8.4% were brain dead. Patients undergoing WD/WHLS were older and had a longer length of stay than patients dying from other causes. Poor prognosis was the most common reason given for WDLS, reflected by significant organ dysfunction at the time of WDLS. Future quality of life was a less frequently cited reason. Most patients undergoing WDLS did so early in their ICU stay, although time to WDLS appeared to reflect diagnostic group. Few meetings occurred before WDLS and death occurred soon after initiating WDLS. There was a preference of withdrawing mechanical ventilation last and large amounts of morphine (mean 21 +/- 33 [SD] mg/hr) and benzodiazepines (mean 8.6 +/- 11 mg/hr) were used. Little variability in practice was apparent among the studied ICUs., Conclusions: Similar to other studies, WD/WHLS was the most common cause of death in academic ICUs and poor patient prognosis was considered the most important factor in deciding on WDLS. However, in contrast to other studies, future quality of life was not as frequently cited a reason for WDLS and larger amounts of morphine were used during WDLS. These discrepancies suggest areas for potential future research.