Search

Importance: Agitation is common in mechanically ventilated ICU patients, but little is known about physician attitudes regarding agitation in this setting. Objectives: To characterize physician attitudes regarding agitation in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: We surveyed critical care physicians within a multicenter health system in Western Pennsylvania, assessing attitudes regarding agitation during mechanical ventilation and use of and confidence in agitation management options. We used quantitative clinical vignettes to determine whether agitation influences confidence regarding readiness for extubation. We sent our survey to 332 critical care physicians, of whom 80 (24%) responded and 69 were eligible (had cared for a mechanically ventilated patient in the preceding three months). Main Outcomes and Measures: Respondent confidence in patient readiness for extubation (0–100%, continuous) and frequency of use and confidence in management options (1–5, Likert). Results: Of 69 eligible responders, 61 (88%) agreed agitation is common and 49 (71%) agreed agitation is a barrier to extubation, but only 27 (39%) agreed their approach to agitation is evidence-based. Attitudes regarding agitation did not differ much by practice setting or physician demographics, though respondents working in medical ICUs were more likely ( P = .04) and respondents trained in surgery or emergency medicine were less likely ( P = .03) than others to indicate that agitation is an extubation barrier. Fifty-three (77%) respondents reported they frequently use non-pharmacologic measures to treat agitation, and 42 (70%) of those who reported they used non-pharmacologic measures during the prior 3 months indicated confidence in their effectiveness. In responses to clinical vignettes, confidence in patient's readiness for extubation was significantly lower if the patient was agitated ( P

International audience; Unique challenges arise when conducting trials to evaluate therapies already in common clinical use, including difficulty enrolling patients owing to widespread open-label use of trial therapies and the need for large sample sizes to detect small but clinically meaningful treatment effects. Despite numerous successes in trials evaluating novel interventions such as vaccines, traditional explanatory trials have struggled to provide definitive answers to time-sensitive questions for acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Pragmatic trials, which can increase efficiency by allowing some or all trial procedures to be embedded into clinical care, are increasingly proposed as a means to evaluate therapies that are in common clinical use. In this Personal View, we use two concurrently conducted COVID-19 trials of hydroxychloroquine (the US ORCHID trial and the UK RECOVERY trial) to contrast the effects of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs on trial conduct, trial results, and the care of patients managed outside of clinical trials. In view of the potential advantages and disadvantages of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs, we make recommendations for their optimal use in the evaluation of therapies in the acute care setting.

Background Perceived health is one of the strongest determinants of subjective well-being, but it has received little attention among survivors of ARDS. Research question How well do self-reported measures of physical, emotional, and social functioning predict perceived overall health (measured using the EQ-5D visual analog scale [EQ-5D-VAS]) among adult survivors of ARDS? Are demographic features, comorbidity, or severity of illness correlated with perceived health after controlling for self-reported functioning? Study Design and Methods We analyzed the ARDSNet Long Term Outcomes Study (ALTOS) and Improving Care of Acute Lung Injury Patients (ICAP) Study, two longitudinal cohorts with a total of 823 survivors from 44 US hospitals, which prospectively assessed survivors at 6 and 12 months after ARDS. Perceived health, evaluated using the EQ-5D-VAS, was predicted using ridge regression and self-reported measures of physical, emotional, and social functioning. The difference between observed and predicted perceived health was termed perspective deviation (PD). Correlations between PD and demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness were explored. Results The correlation between observed and predicted EQ-5D-VAS scores ranged from 0.68 to 0.73 across the two cohorts and time points. PD ranged from –80 to +34 and was more than the minimum clinically important difference for 52% to 55% of survivors. Neither demographic features, comorbidity, nor severity of illness were correlated strongly with PD, with |r| Interpretation About half of survivors of ARDS showed clinically important differences in actual perceived health vs predicted perceived health based on self-reported measures of functioning. Survivors of ARDS demographic features, comorbidities, and severity of illness were correlated only weakly with perceived health after controlling for measures of perceived functioning, highlighting the challenge of predicting how individual patients will respond psychologically to new impairments after critical illness.

Discussion of patient expectations for recovery is a component of intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up clinics. However, few studies have formally evaluated recovery-related expectations of ICU survivors.To estimate the prevalence of unmet expectations for recovery six months after hospital discharge among adult survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF).Prospective, longitudinal, cohort study of ARF survivors discharged to home from five U.S. medical centers. Expectations for functional recovery were assessed by asking which activities and instrumental activities of daily living (I/ADLs) survivors expected to perform independently at six months. Survivors' expectations for overall health status were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 - 100. At 6-month follow-up, participants reported which I/ADLs they could perform independently and rated their overall health status using a 100-point VAS. We defined a participant's Functional Expectations as being met if they reported independently performing I/ADLs as expected at hospital discharge. Health Expectations were considered to be met when self-rated health status at six months was no more than eight points lower than expected at enrollment.Among 180 enrollees, 169 (94%) were alive and 160 of these (95%) participated in 6-month follow-up. Functional Expectations were met for 71% of participating survivors, and overall Health Expectations were met for 50%. Expectations for functional independence were high, ranging from 87% (housekeeping) to 99% (using a telephone). General health expectations were variable (median = 85, Interquartile range [IQR] = 75, 95). At 6-month follow-up, self-rated, overall health ranged from 2 to 100 (median = 80, IQR = 60, 85). In exploratory analyses, participants with met vs unmet expectations differed most in formal education (Functional Expectations standardized difference d = 0.88, Health Expectations d = 0.41).ARF survivors' expectations about independent functioning were high and generally met, but half had unmet general health expectations six months after discharge. It is difficult to predict whose health expectations will be unmet, but possessing less formal education may be a risk factor.

Background Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it However the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life despite robust evidence for improved outcomes Goals This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society ATS and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this Methods An international and interprofessional expert committee including patients and caregivers achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary critical care palliative care bioethics health law and policy geriatrics nursing physiotherapy social work pharmacy patient advocacy psychology and sociology Results The committee developed fundamental values principles and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains 1 delivery models 2 comprehensive symptom assessment and management 3 advance care planning and goals of care discussions 4 caregiver support 5 health disparities 6 mass casualty events and emergency preparedness and 7 research priorities The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers Conclusions This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration Copyright 2022 by the American Thoracic Society

Goal concordant care (GCC) is the alignment of care to patient values and preferences. GCC is a major outcome of communication with patients and families in serious/critical illness. Using the electronic health record (EHR) to study the provision of GCC would be pragmatic and cost-effective for research and quality improvement efforts.Do EHRs contain information to identify GCC?This is a feasibility retrospective chart review performed by two independent reviewers. An existing framework containing four questions for identifying GCC was adopted. Two clinicians reviewed multi-disciplinary notes and extracted pertinent information. The primary outcomes were whether the four key questions for determining goal concordance could be answered using information in the EHR. The secondary outcome was the type of goals identified. Cohen's kappa was used to measure agreement between two reviewers.Patient care was considered goal concordant in 35 (85%) of 41 patients in a random sample comprising of 36 survivors and five who died in hospital. Inter-rater agreement on identifying data to determine GCC was excellent (Kappa 0.70). Patient goals were identified in 80% of charts reviewed. Note sources informative of patient preferences, included social work (39%), hospital progress notes (29%), palliative care (20%), and physical/occupational therapy (15%). "Returning home" and "getting better/ stronger" were among the most common patient goals captured in EHR.The EHR can be used to understand patient goals, but the information is scattered across the multi-disciplinary notes. Improving EHR and external validation will facilitate ascertainment of goal concordance as an important outcome measure.

As of July 31, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 had infected almost 200 million people worldwide. The growing burden of survivorship is substantial in terms of the complexity of long-term health effects and the number of people affected. Persistent symptoms have been reported in patients with both mild and severe acute COVID-19, including those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Early reports on the post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) indicate that fatigue, dyspnoea, cough, headache, loss of taste or smell, and cognitive or mental health impairments are among the most common symptoms. These complex, multifactorial impairments across the domains of physical, cognitive, and mental health require a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to management. Decades of research on the multifaceted needs of and models of care for patients with post-intensive care syndrome provide a framework for the development of PASC clinics to address the immediate needs of both hospitalised and non-hospitalised survivors of COVID-19. Such clinics could also provide a platform for rigorous research into the natural history of PASC and the potential benefits of therapeutic interventions.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., OBJECTIVES: To determine if a restrictive visitor policy inadvertently lengthened the decision-making process for dying inpatients without coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Regression discontinuity and time-to-event analysis. SETTING: Two large academic hospitals in a unified health system. PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS: Adult decedents who received greater than or equal to 1 day of ICU care during their terminal admission over a 12-month period. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation of a visit restriction policy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 940 adult decedents without coronavirus disease 2019 during the study period. For these patients, ICU length of stay was 0.8 days longer following policy implementation, although this effect was not statistically significant (95% CI, –2.3 to 3.8; p = 0.63). After excluding patients admitted before the policy but who died after implementation, we observed that ICU length of stay was 2.9 days longer post-policy (95% CI, 0.27–5.6; p = 0.03). A time-to-event analysis revealed that admission after policy implementation was associated with a significantly longer time to first do not resuscitate/do not intubate/comfort care order (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.6–3.1; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Policies restricting family presence may lead to longer ICU stays and delay decisions to limit treatment prior to death. Further policy evaluation and programs enabling access to family-centered care and palliative care during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic are imperative.

For more than three decades, both medical professionals and the public have worried that many patients receive non-beneficial care in US intensive care units during their final months of life. Some of these patients wish to avoid severe cognitive and physical impairments, and protracted deaths in the hospital setting. Recognising when intensive care will not restore a person's health, and helping patients and families embrace goals related to symptom relief, interpersonal connection, or spiritual fulfilment are central challenges of critical care practice in the USA. We review trials from the past decade of interventions designed to address these challenges, and present reasons why evaluating, comparing, and implementing these interventions have been difficult. Careful scrutiny of the design and interpretation of past trials can show why improving goal concordant care has been so elusive, and suggest new directions for the next generation of research.

Objectives:The Critical Care Choosing Wisely Task Force recommends that intensivists offer patients at high risk for death or severe functional impairment the option of pursuing care focused on comfort. We tested the a priori hypothesis that intensivists who are prompted to document patient prognosi

PURPOSE: To determine how patients perceive their quality of life (QOL) six months following critical illness and to measure clinicians’ discriminative accuracy of predicting this outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors asked patients to report their QOL strictly at six months compared to one month before their critical illness as better, the same, or worse. ICU physicians and nurses made six-month QOL predictions for these patients.. RESULTS: Of 162 critical illness survivors, 33% (n=53) of patients reported six-month QOL as better, 33% (n=54) the same, and 34% (n=55) worse. Abnormal cognition and inability to return to primary pastime or original place of residence (p

BACKGROUND: As more individuals survive sepsis, there is an urgent need to understand its effects on patient-reported outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effect of sepsis on self-rated health, and what role, if any, does functional disability play in mediating this effect? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a survey- and administrative claims-based retrospective cohort study using the US Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative cohort-based survey of older adults in the United States, from 2000 through 2016. We matched Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with sepsis in 2000 to 2008 to nonhospitalized individuals. Self-rated health and functional disability were tracked biannually for 8 years. Differences in self-rated health between the cohorts were measured using mixed models with and without controlling for changes in functional disability. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-eight individuals with sepsis were matched 1:1 to 758 nonhospitalized individuals, all aged 65 years and older. Among survivors, sepsis was associated with worse self-rated health in years 2 and 4 (adjusted absolute difference in self-rated health on a 5-point scale in year 2: −0.24 [95% CI, −0.38 to −0.10] and year 4: −0.17 [95% CI, −0.33 to −0.02]) but not in years 6 or 8. After accounting for changes in functional status, the association between sepsis and self-rated health was still present but reduced in year 2 (adjusted absolute difference in self-rated health, −0.18 [95% CI, −0.31 to −0.05]) and was not present in years 4, 6, or 8. INTERPRETATION: Self-rated health worsened initially after sepsis but returned to the level of that of nonhospitalized control subjects by year 6. Mitigating sepsis-related functional disability may play a key role in improving self-rated health after sepsis.

Family support is more, not less, important during crisis. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining public safety necessitates restricting the physical presence of families for hospitalized patients. In response, health systems must rapidly adapt family-centric procedures and tools to circumvent restrictions on physical presence. Strategies for maintaining family integrity must acknowledge clinicians' limited time and attention to devote to learning new skills. Internet-based solutions can facilitate the routine, predictable, and structured communication, which is central to family-centered care. But the reliance on technology may compromise patient privacy and exacerbate racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities for populations that lack access to reliable internet access, devices, or technological literacy. We provide a toolbox of strategies for supporting family-centered inpatient care during physical distancing responsive to the current clinical climate. Innovations in the implementation of family involvement during hospitalizations may lead to long-term progress in the delivery of family-centered care.

BackgroundOn-line tutorials are being increasingly used in medical education, including in teaching housestaff skills regarding end of life care. Recently an on-line tutorial incorporating interactive clinical vignettes and communication skills was used to prepare housestaff at Johns Hopkins Hospital to use the Maryland Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form, which documents patient preferences regarding end of life care. 40% of housestaff who viewed the module felt less than comfortable discussing choices on the MOLST with patients. We sought to understand factors beyond knowledge that contributed to housestaff discomfort in MOLST discussions despite successfully completing an on-line tutorial.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 18 housestaff who completed the on-line MOLST training module. Housestaff participants demonstrated good knowledge of legal and regulatory issues related to the MOLST compared to their peers, but reported feeling less than comfortable discussing the MOLST with patients. Transcripts of interviews were coded using thematic analysis to describe barriers to using the MOLST and suggestions for improving housestaff education about end of life care discussions.ResultsQualitative analysis showed three major factors contributing to lack of housestaff comfort completing the MOLST form: [1] physician barriers to completion of the MOLST, [2] perceived patient barriers to completion of the MOLST, and [3] design characteristics of the MOLST form. Housestaff recommended a number of adaptations for improvement, including in-person training to improve their skills conducting conversations regarding end of life preferences with patients.ConclusionsSome housestaff who scored highly on knowledge tests after completing a formal on-line curriculum on the MOLST form reported barriers to using a mandated form despite receiving training. On-line modules may be insufficient for teaching communication skills to housestaff. Additional training opportunities including in-person training mechanisms should be incorporated into housestaff communication skills training related to end of life care.

Objectives The objective of this study was to elicit feedback on consensus methodology used for core outcome set (COS) development. Study Design and Setting An online survey of international Delphi panelists participating in a recent COS for clinical research studies evaluating acute respiratory failure (ARF) survivors was conducted. Panelists represented 14 countries (56% outside the United States). Results Seventy (92%) panelists completed the survey, including 32 researchers, 19 professional association representatives, 4 research funding representatives, and 15 ARF survivors/caregiver members. Among respondents, 91% reported that the time required to participate was appropriate and 96% were not bothered by reminders for timely response. Attributes of measurement instruments and voting results from previous rounds were evaluated differently across stakeholder groups. When measurement properties were explained in the stem of the survey question, 59 (84%) panelists (including 73% of survivors/families) correctly interpreted information about an instrument's reliability. Without a reminder in the stem, only 20 (29%) panelists (including 38% of researchers) correctly identified properties of a COS. Conclusion This international Delphi panel, including >20% patients/caregivers, favorably reported on feasibility of the methodology. Providing all panelists pertinent information/reminders about the project's objective at each voting round is important to informed decision making across all stakeholder groups.

Research evaluating acute respiratory failure (ARF) survivors' outcomes after hospital discharge has substantial heterogeneity in terms of the measurement instruments used, creating barriers to synthesizing study data.To identify a minimum set of core outcome measures that are essential to include in all clinical research studies evaluating ARF survivors after discharge.We conducted a three-round modified Delphi consensus process with 77 participants (47% female, 55% outside the United States), including clinical researchers from more than 16 countries across six continents, patients/caregivers, clinicians, and research funders. Participants reviewed standardized information on measure instruments for seven consensus-derived outcomes plus one recommended outcome.Response rates were 91 to 97% across the three rounds. Among 75 measurement instruments evaluated, the following met a priori consensus criteria: EQ-5D and 36-item Short Form Health Survey version 2 (optional) for the "satisfaction with life and personal enjoyment" and "pain" outcomes, and both the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Impact of Events Scale-Revised for the "mental health" outcome. No measures reached consensus for the following outcomes: cognition, muscle and/or nerve function, physical function, and pulmonary function. All measures considered for pulmonary function met consensus criteria for exclusion. The following measures did not reach the threshold for consensus but achieved the highest scores for their respective outcomes: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (cognition), manual muscle testing and handgrip dynamometry (muscle and/or nerve function), and 6-minute-walk test (physical function).This Core Outcome Measurement Set is recommended for use in all clinical research evaluating ARF survivors after hospital discharge. In the future, researchers should evaluate measures for outcomes not reaching consensus.

To identify the "core domains" (i.e., patient outcomes, health-related conditions, or aspects of health) that relevant stakeholders agree are essential to assess in all clinical research studies evaluating the outcomes of acute respiratory failure survivors after hospital discharge.A two-round consensus process, using a modified Delphi methodology, with participants from 16 countries, including patient and caregiver representatives. Prior to voting, participants were asked to review 1) results from surveys of clinical researchers, acute respiratory failure survivors, and caregivers that rated the importance of 19 preliminary outcome domains and 2) results from a qualitative study of acute respiratory failure survivors' outcomes after hospital discharge, as related to the 19 preliminary outcome domains. Participants also were asked to suggest any additional potential domains for evaluation in the first Delphi survey.Web-based surveys of participants representing four stakeholder groups relevant to clinical research evaluating postdischarge outcomes of acute respiratory failure survivors: clinical researchers, clinicians, patients and caregivers, and U.S. federal research funding organizations.None.None.Survey response rates were 97% and 99% in round 1 and round 2, respectively. There were seven domains that met the a priori consensus criteria to be designated as core domains: physical function, cognition, mental health, survival, pulmonary function, pain, and muscle and/or nerve function.This study generated a consensus-based list of core domains that should be assessed in all clinical research studies evaluating acute respiratory failure survivors after hospital discharge. Identifying appropriate measurement instruments to assess these core domains is an important next step toward developing a set of core outcome measures for this field of research.

Objectives To evaluate the epidemiology of and postintensive care unit (ICU) interventions for anxiety symptoms after critical illness. Methods We searched five databases (1970–2015) to identify studies assessing anxiety symptoms in adult ICU survivors. Data from studies using the most common assessment instrument were meta-analyzed. Results We identified 27 studies (2880 patients) among 27,334 citations. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) subscale was the most common instrument (81% of studies). We pooled data at 2–3, 6 and 12–14month time-points, with anxiety symptom prevalences [HADS-A≥8, 95% confidence interval (CI)] of 32%(27–38%), 40%(33–46%) and 34%(25–42%), respectively. In a subset of studies with repeated assessments in the exact same patients, there was no significant change in anxiety score or prevalence over time. Age, gender, severity of illness, diagnosis and length of stay were not associated with anxiety symptoms. Psychiatric symptoms during admission and memories of in-ICU delusional experiences were potential risk factors. Physical rehabilitation and ICU diaries had potential benefit. Conclusions One third of ICU survivors experience anxiety symptoms that are persistent during their first year of recovery. Psychiatric symptoms during admission and memories of in-ICU delusional experiences were associated with post-ICU anxiety. Physical rehabilitation and ICU diaries merit further investigation as possible interventions.

Background There is increasing interest in measuring the quality of survivorship for patients admitted to the intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, there is substantial variability in patient outcomes reported in studies evaluating these patients, with few data on which outcomes are essential to inform clinical practice. Objective The objectives of this study were to determine clinicians’ perspectives on the outcome domains that should always be reported in studies evaluating people who have had ARF after hospital discharge and to compare findings about US and Australian perspectives. Design A modified Delphi method was used for the study. Methods A survey with 19 possible domains was developed to iteratively elicit clinicians’ perspectives on core outcome domains via a modified Delphi method. The survey was initially administered online. The survey results were then discussed independently at meetings at scientific conferences in the United States and Australia, and the survey was repeated at the meetings after the discussions. Results The numbers of participants who responded to both the online and the real-time polling were 44 of 100 (44%) in the United States and 78 of 85 (92%) in Australia. Most respondents were intensive care unit–based clinicians (United States: 33 [75%]; Australia: 76 [97%]). For the 19 domains evaluated, both US and Australian groups ranked physical function and symptoms as the most important domain, with quality of life, cognitive function and symptoms, and survival being the next 3 most important domains. These data yielded a total of 4 domains meeting the criteria for inclusion as core domains at both meetings. Limitations Several key constituencies, including patients and caregivers, were not represented in this study; their perspectives are also important and ideally should be included in the development of a comprehensive core outcome set. Conclusions Clinicians agreed that physical function and symptoms, quality of life, cognitive function, and survival were domains that should always be measured in research evaluating outcomes for people who have had ARF after hospital discharge.

To synthesize data on prevalence, natural history, risk factors, and post-ICU interventions for depressive symptoms in ICU survivors.PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry (1970-2015).Studies measuring depression after hospital discharge using a validated instrument in more than 20 adults from non-specialty ICUs.Duplicate independent review and data abstraction.The search identified 27,334 titles, with 42 eligible articles on 38 unique studies (n = 4,113). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression subscale was used most commonly (58%). The pooled Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression subscale prevalence (95% CI) of depressive symptoms at a threshold score greater than or equal to 8 was 29% (22-36%) at 2-3 months (12 studies; n = 1,078), 34% (24-43%) at 6 months (seven studies; n = 760), and 29% (23-34%) at 12-14 months (six studies; n = 1,041). The prevalence of suprathreshold depressive symptoms (compatible with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression subscale, ≥ 8) across all studies, using all instruments, was between 29% and 30% at all three time points. The pooled change in prevalence (95% CI) from 2-3 to 6 months (four studies; n = 387) was 5% (-1% to +12%), and from 6 to 12 months (three studies; n = 412) was 1% (-6% to +7%). Risk factors included pre-ICU psychologic morbidity and presence of in-ICU psychologic distress symptoms. We did not identify any post-ICU intervention with strong evidence of improvement in depressive symptoms.Clinically important depressive symptoms occurred in approximately one-third of ICU survivors and were persistent through 12-month follow-up. Greater research into treatment is needed for this common and persistent post-ICU morbidity.

Legal documents similar to the Maryland Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form requiring physician endorsement are increasingly used by critically ill patients.To evaluate whether an interactive, online training module on completion and interpretation of the MOLST form leads to a sustained increase in knowledge among house staff.Pre/post survey of 329 house staff at Johns Hopkins Hospital who admit and discharge patients between June 2014 and July 2015. House staff were encouraged to complete a voluntary, interactive, online educational module on completing and interpreting MOLST forms. Participants received $25 for accessing the module and $10 for completing each survey.The primary outcome was the change in the number of questions answered correctly on the post- versus presurvey comparing house staff who viewed the module for at least 20 minutes with house staff who never viewed or never completed the module. Overall, 329 (69%) house staff completed the knowledge assessment survey both before and after the module was available, and 201 (61%) of these house staff completed the voluntary module. The median score on the presurvey conducted in July and August of 2014 was 14 out of 21 (interquartile range [IQR] 12, 16). The median (IQR) score on the postsurvey conducted in May and June of 2015 was 15 out of 21 (13, 17). The median (IQR) change in score among those who spent at least 20 minutes completing the module was 1 question (-1, 3), and among those who never viewed or never completed the module it was also 1 (IQR -1, 2). The postsurvey was completed a median (IQR) of 59 (52, 62) days after viewing the module. After adjusting for years of postgraduate clinical training, self-reported baseline experience completing MOLST forms, and self-reported responsibility for discharging patients, viewing the module for at least 20 minutes was associated with a nonsignificant increase in score of 0.41 questions (95% confidence interval, -0.25, 1.06; P = 0.23).An interactive, online educational module had no effect on trainee knowledge of completing and interpreting MOLST forms approximately 2 months after completion. Information conveyed via online modules alone may have minimal sustained impact on house staff knowledge.

OBJECTIVES To characterize intensivist handoff practices and expectations and to explore perceptions of the patient safety implications of attending handoffs. DESIGN Cross-sectional electronic survey administered in 2014. SETTING One hundred sixty-nine U.S. hospitals with critical care training programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. SUBJECTS Academic intensivists were recruited via e-mail invitation from a database of 1,712 eligible academic intensivists. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Six hundred sixty-one intensivists completed the survey (completion rate, 38.6%). Responses were received from at least one individual at 147 of 169 unique hospitals (87.0%) represented in the study database. Five hundred seventy-three (87%) respondents reported participating in handoffs at the end of each ICU rotation. A variety of communication methods were used for end-of-rotation handoffs, including in-person discussion (92.9%), telephone calls (83.9%), e-mail messages (69.0%), computer-generated documents (64.6%), and text messages (23.6%). Mean satisfaction with current handoff process was rated as 68.4 on a scale from 0 to 100 (SD, 22.6). Respondents (55.4%) said that attending handoffs should be standardized, but only 13.3% (76/572) of those participating in end-of-rotation handoffs reported using a standardized process. Specific handoff topics, including active clinical issues and resuscitation status, were reportedly discussed less frequently than would be ideal (p < 0.001 for the difference between reported frequency and ideal frequency). In free-text comments, 76 respondents (11.5%) expressed skepticism that attending handoffs were necessary given the presence of residents and fellows and given a lack of agreement about necessary content. Two hundred respondents (30.8%) reported knowing of an adverse event (inappropriate treatment, cardiac arrest, and death) attributable to inadequate attending handoffs. CONCLUSIONS ICU attending handoffs in the United States exhibit marked heterogeneity, and intensivists do not agree about the value of attending handoffs. In addition, some intensivists perceive a link between suboptimal attending handoffs, inappropriate treatment, and serious adverse events that warrants further study.

e24005 Background: Patients participating in phase I trials represent a population with advanced cancer and symptoms, with QOL implications from both disease and treatment. Transitions to end of life for these patients has received little attention. Good empirical data is needed to better understand the role of advanced care planning (ACP) and palliative care (PC) during phase I trial transitions. We investigated how physician-patient communication at time of progression, patient characteristics, and patterns of care were associated with EOL care. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all patients with solid tumors enrolled in phase I trials at a comprehensive cancer center from Jan 2015 to Dec 2017. We captured physician-patient communication during disease progression, and for all patient deaths, assessed PC referral, ACP, place of death, health care utilization in the final month of life, hospice enrollment and LOS. Factors independently associated with a short hospice LOS (defined as ≤3 days) were estimated from a multivariable model building approach. Results: Among 207 participants, median age was 61 (range 31-91), 48% were female and 20% were ethnic minorities. Predominant diagnoses were GI (40%), GU (14%), and lung cancer (15%). 40% of patients were referred from an outside institution. At the time of disease progression, 64% had goals of care documented, 57% were referred to PC, and 54% discussed hospice with their oncologist. Overall, 82% of patients died within 1 year of study enrollment. Of all patients who died, 85% enrolled in hospice and 76% died at home. In the last 30 days of life, 37% were hospitalized, 21% received chemotherapy, and 8% were admitted to the ICU. 15% had a short hospice LOS. The multivariable model revealed that increased age > 65 was positively associated with short hospice length of service (odds ratio (OR) 1.12 [95% CI 1.01, 1.24], p = 0.03), while remaining at the same institution (OR 0.72 [95% CI 0.65, 0.8], p < 0.001), and referral to PC before progression (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.75, 0.92], p < 0.001) were associated with a decreased risk of short hospice LOS. Conclusions: This data supports the benefit of PC for patients on phase I trials and the danger of transitions for all patients, with particular attention needed for older adults, regardless of care received. Leaving a clinical trial is a time when clear communication is paramount. Phase 1 studies will continue to be vital in advancing cancer treatment. It is equally important to advance the support provided to patients who transition off these trials.

Key Points Question Does intensivist self-assessment of communication skills endorsed by professional guidelines align with assessments of the same skills by blinded expert colleagues? Findings In this survey, 76 US intensivists read deidentified transcripts from their intensive care unit family meeting and rated themselves as conveying prognosis, highlighting choice, providing recommendations and offering the option of care focused on comfort. Sixty-one of 76 intensivists reported conveying prognosis, and blinded colleagues agreed that 42 of those 61 had conveyed the patient’s risk of death. Meaning Clinicians who lack communication skills endorsed in professional guidelines may also lack the metacognitive skills required to recognize their deficiencies, which makes routine feedback and continuing education on communication and shared decision-making essential at all levels of practice., Importance Professional guidelines have identified key communication skills for shared decision-making for critically ill patients, but it is unclear how intensivists interpret and implement them. Objective To compare the self-evaluations of intensivists reviewing transcripts of their own simulated intensive care unit family meetings with the evaluations of trained expert colleagues. Design, Setting, and Participants A posttrial web-based survey of intensivists was conducted between January and March 2019. Intensivists reviewed transcripts of simulated intensive care unit family meetings in which they participated in a previous trial from October 2016 to November 2017. In the follow-up survey, participants identified if and how they performed key elements of shared decision-making for an intensive care unit patient at high risk of death. Transcript texts that intensivists self-identified as examples of key communication skills recommended by their professional society’s policy on shared decision-making were categorized. Main Outcomes and Measures Comparison of the evaluations of 2 blinded nonparticipant intensivist colleagues with the self-reported responses of the intensivists. Results Of 116 eligible intensivists, 76 (66%) completed the follow-up survey (mean [SD] respondent age was 43.1 [8.1] years; 72% were male). Sixty-one of 76 intensivists reported conveying prognosis; however, blinded colleagues who reviewed the deidentified transcripts were less likely to report that prognosis had been conveyed than intensivists reviewing their own transcripts (42 of 61; odds ratio, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.44; P, This survey study assesses how the self-assessments of intensivists who read a transcript of their participation in an intensive care family meeting simulation compare with assessments of blinded colleagues reading the same transcript in reporting the performance of key communication skills endorsed by their professional societies.

Key Points Question Do intensivist communication patterns affect the way family members understand their loved one’s prognosis in the intensive care unit? Findings In this randomized trial of 302 family members of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving long-term oxygen therapy, participants were asked to imagine their family member was in the intensive care unit, and the participants were presented video vignettes of an intensivist who expected a patient to die answering the prognostic question “What do you think is most likely to happen?” Participants who viewed videos of the intensivist using indirect or redirection language perceived the intensivist to be more optimistic than participants who viewed a video of the intensivist answering the question directly. Meaning These findings suggest that family members interpret physicians’ indirect responses to questions about prognosis as more optimistic than direct responses., This randomized trial examines the effects of 4 types of intensivist responses to the question “What do you think is most likely to happen?” among family members of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a hypothetical intensive care unit setting., Importance Discordance about prognosis between a patient’s health care decision-making surrogate and the treating intensivist is common in the intensive care unit (ICU). Empowering families, friends, and caregivers of patients who are critically ill to make informed decisions about care is important, but it is unclear how best to communicate prognostic information to surrogates when a patient is expected to die. Objective To determine whether family members, who are often health care decision-making surrogates, interpret intensivists as being more optimistic when questions about prognosis in the ICU are answered indirectly. Design, Setting, and Participants This web-based randomized trial was conducted between September 27, 2019, and October 17, 2019, among a national sample of adult children, spouses, partners, or siblings of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were receiving long-term oxygen therapy. Participants were shown video vignettes depicting an intensivist answering a standardized question about the prognosis of a patient at high risk of death on day 3 of ICU admission. Participants were excluded if they had worked as a physician, nurse, or advanced health care practitioner. Data were analyzed from October 18, 2019, to November 12, 2019. Interventions Participants were randomized to view 1 of 4 intensivist communication styles in response to the question “What do you think is most likely to happen?”: (1) a direct response (control), (2) an indirect response comparing the patient’s condition with that of other patients, (3) an indirect response describing the patient’s deteriorating physiological condition, or (4) redirection to a discussion of the patient’s values and goals. Main Outcomes and Measures Participant responses to 2 questions: (1) “If you had to guess, what do you think the doctor thinks is the chance that your loved one will survive this hospitalization?” and (2) “What do you think are the chances that your loved one will survive this hospitalization?” answered using a 0% to 100% probability scale. Results Among 302 participants (median [interquartile range] age, 49 [38-59] years; 204 [68%] women) included in the trial, 165 (55%) were adult children of the individual with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; 77 participants were randomized to view a direct response, 77 participants were randomized to view an indirect response referencing other patients, 68 participants were randomized to view an indirect response referencing physiological condition, and 80 participants were randomized to view a redirection response. Compared with participants who viewed a direct response, participants who viewed an indirect response referencing other patients (β = 10 [95% CI, 1-19]; P = .03), physiological condition (β = 10 [95% CI, 0-19]; P = .04), or redirection to a discussion of the patient’s values and goals (β = 19 [95% CI, 10-28]; P

Context Conflict is frequently reported by both clinicians and surrogate decision makers for adult patients in intensive care units. Because religious clinicians view religion as an important dimension of end-of-life care, we hypothesized that religious critical care attendings (intensivists) would be more comfortable and perceive less conflict when discussing a patient's critical illness with a religious surrogate. Objectives The objective of this study was to assess if religious intensivists are more or less likely to perceive conflict during a simulated family meeting than secular colleagues. Methods Intensivists were recruited to participate in a standardized, simulated family meeting with an actor portraying a family member of a critically ill patient. Intensivists provided demographic information including their current religion and the importance of religion in their lives. After the simulation, intensivists rated the amount of conflict they perceived during the simulation. The association between intensivist's self-reported religiosity and perceived conflict was estimated using both univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 112 participating intensivists, 43 (38%) perceived conflict during the simulation. Among intensivists who perceived conflict, 49% were religious, and among those who did not perceive conflict, 35% were religious. After adjusting for physician race, gender, years in practice, intensive care unit weeks worked per year and actor, physician religiosity was associated with greater odds of perceiving conflict during the simulated family meeting (adjusted prevalence ratio = 2.77, [95% CI 1.12–7.16], P = 0.03). Conclusion Religious intensivists were more likely to perceive conflict during a simulated family meeting.

PURPOSE: It is unknown how sepsis survivors conceptualize health-related quality of life (HRQL). We aimed to identify important HRQL domains for this population. METHODS: A literature search was performed to inform an interview guide. Open-ended interviews were held with 15 purposefully sampled sepsis survivors. Interview transcripts were analyzed by interpretative phenomenological analysis to allow themes to develop organically. Resulting codes were reviewed by an independent expert. The preliminary list of domains was rated in a two-round Delphi consensus procedure with therapists and survivors. RESULTS: Eleven domains emerged as critically important: Psychological impairment, Fatigue, Physical impairment, Coping with daily life, Return to normal living, Ability to walk, Cognitive impairment, Self-perception, Control over one’s life, Family support and Delivery of health care. Sepsis survivors want a “normal life”, to walk again, to regain control without cognitive impairment. Family support is essential to overcome sepsis aftermaths. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors described many HRQL domains which are not captured by the QoL instruments that have traditionally been used to study ICU survivorship (i.e. SF-36 and EQ-5D). Future studies of QoL in ICU survivors should consider using both a traditional instrument so that results are comparable to previous research, as well as a more holistic QoL measurement instrument like the WHOQOL-BREF.

International audience; Medical professionals are expected to prioritize patient interests, and most patients trust physicians to act in their best interest. However, a single patient is never a physician's sole concern. The competing interests of other patients, clinicians, family members, hospital administrators, regulators, insurers, and trainees are omnipresent. While prioritizing patient interests is always a struggle, it is especially challenging and important in the ICU setting where most patients lack the ability to advocate for themselves or seek alternative sources of care. This review explores factors that increase the risk, or the perception, that an ICU physician will reason, recommend, or act in a way that is not in their patient's best interest and discusses steps that could help minimize the impact of these factors on patient care.

Context Goal-concordant care has been identified as an important outcome of advance care planning and shared decision-making initiatives. However, validated methods for measuring goal concordance are needed. Objectives To estimate the inter-rater reliability of senior critical care fellows rating the goal concordance of preference-sensitive interventions performed in intensive care units (ICUs) while considering patient-specific circumstances as described in a previously proposed methodology. Methods We identified ICU patients receiving preference-sensitive interventions in three adult ICUs at Johns Hopkins Hospital. A simulated cohort was created by randomly assigning each patient one of 10 sets of goals and preferences about limiting life support. Critical care fellows then independently reviewed patient charts and answered two questions: 1) Is this patient's goal achievable? and 2) Will performing this intervention help achieve the patient's goal? When the answer to both questions was yes, the intervention was rated as goal concordant. Inter-rater agreement was summarized by estimating intraclass correlation coefficient using mixed-effects models. Results Six raters reviewed the charts of 201 patients. Interventions were rated as goal concordant 22%–92% of the time depending on the patient's goal-limitation combination. Percent agreement between pairs of raters ranged from 59% to 86%. The intraclass correlation coefficient for ratings of goal concordance was 0.50 (95% CI 0.31–0.69) and was robust to patient age, gender, ICU, severity of illness, and lengths of stay. Conclusion Inter-rater agreement between intensivists using a standardized methodology to evaluate the goal concordance of preference-sensitive ICU interventions was moderate. Further testing is needed before this methodology can be recommended as a clinical research outcome.