Search

This cohort study assesses whether higher levels of family member–reported palliative care needs are observed among those whose critically ill loved ones meet a clinical palliative care trigger compared with those who do not meet such a trigger., Key Points Question Does clinical palliative care trigger status accurately identify individuals with the most serious unmet palliative care needs? Findings In this cohort study including 257 dyads (1 patient in an intensive care unit [ICU] and 1 family member of each patient), there was no significant difference in self-reported palliative care needs between those with and without a clinical trigger (median Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool scores, 21.0 vs 22.5). Clinical triggers’ 45% sensitivity and 55% specificity suggested that they were no better than chance at identifying serious needs. Meaning The findings suggest that using clinical trigger status to prompt palliative care consultation in ICU settings may be an inefficient use of this limited resource; incorporating direct measures of unmet need in care may be a promising alternative strategy., Importance Palliative care consultations in intensive care units (ICUs) are increasingly prompted by clinical characteristics associated with mortality or resource utilization. However, it is not known whether these triggers reflect actual palliative care needs. Objective To compare unmet needs by clinical palliative care trigger status (present vs absent). Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study was conducted in 6 adult medical and surgical ICUs in academic and community hospitals in North Carolina between January 2019 and September 2020. Participants were consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation and their family members. Exposure Presence of any of 9 common clinical palliative care triggers. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST) score (range, 0-130, with higher scores reflecting greater need), which was completed after 3 days of ICU care. Trigger status performance in identifying serious need (NEST score ≥30) was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and C statistics. Results Surveys were completed by 257 of 360 family members of patients (71.4% of the potentially eligible patient–family member dyads approached) with a median age of 54.0 years (IQR, 44-62 years); 197 family members (76.7%) were female, and 83 (32.3%) were Black. The median age of patients was 58.0 years (IQR, 46-68 years); 126 patients (49.0%) were female, and 88 (33.5%) were Black. There was no difference in median NEST score between participants with a trigger present (45%) and those with a trigger absent (55%) (21.0; IQR, 12.0-37.0 vs 22.5; IQR, 12.0-39.0; P = .52). Trigger presence was associated with poor sensitivity (45%; 95% CI, 34%-55%), specificity (55%; 95% CI, 48%-63%), positive likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3), negative likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2), and C statistic (0.50; 95% CI, 0.44-0.57). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, clinical palliative care trigger status was not associated with palliative care needs and no better than chance at identifying the most serious needs, which raises questions about an increasingly common clinical practice. Focusing care delivery on directly measured needs may represent a more person-centered alternative.

ObjectiveBecause the heterogeneity of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and family members represents a challenge to palliative care delivery, we aimed to determine if distinct phenotypes of palliative care needs exist.MethodsProspective cohort study conducted among family members of adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in six medical and surgical ICUs. The primary outcome was palliative care need measured by the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST, range from 0 (no need) to 130 (highest need)) completed 3 days after ICU admission. We also assessed quality of communication, clinician–family relationship and patient centredness of care. Latent class analysis of the NEST’s 13 items was used to identify groups with similar patterns of serious palliative care needs.ResultsAmong 257 family members, latent class analysis yielded a four-class model including complex communication needs (n=26, 10%; median NEST score 68.0), family spiritual and cultural needs (n=21, 8%; 40.0) and patient and family stress needs (n=43, 31%; 31.0), as well as a fourth group with fewer serious needs (n=167, 65%; 14.0). Interclass differences existed in quality of communication (median range 4.0–10.0, pConclusionsFour novel phenotypes of palliative care need were identified among ICU family members with distinct differences in the severity of needs and perceived quality of the clinician–family interaction. Knowledge of need class may help to inform the development of more person-centred models of ICU-based palliative care.

Flecainide is a first-line antiarrhythmic drug used to treat atrial arrhythmias and/or supraventricular tachycardia in those without coronary artery disease or structural heart disease. Even though it is an older antiarrhythmic, flecainide accounted for 1.6 million prescriptions in the United States in 2016, and its utilization is generally increasing. Despite its popularity, flecainide may predispose patients to rapid atrial flutter with resultant hemodynamic compromise, particularly in the physiologically stressful perioperative period. This article reviews the pharmacology of flecainide, describes problematic arrhythmias that may arise specifically during flecainide use, and offers recommendations for perioperative flecainide management.

Introduction The technologies used to treat the millions who receive care in intensive care unit (ICUs) each year have steadily advanced. However, the quality of ICU-based communication has remained suboptimal, particularly concerning for Black patients and their family members. Therefore we developed a mobile app intervention for ICU clinicians and family members called ICUconnect that assists with delivering need-based care. Objective To describe the methods and early experiences of a clustered randomized clinical trial (RCT) being conducted to compare ICUconnect vs. usual care. Methods and analysis The goal of this two-arm, parallel group clustered RCT is to determine the clinical impact of the ICUconnect intervention in improving outcomes overall and for each racial subgroup on reducing racial disparities in core palliative care outcomes over a 3-month follow up period. ICU attending physicians are randomized to either ICUconnect or usual care, with outcomes obtained from family members of ICU patients. The primary outcome is change in unmet palliative care needs measured by the NEST instrument between baseline and 3 days post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include goal concordance of care and interpersonal processes of care at 3 days post-randomization; length of stay; as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder at 3 months post-randomization. We will use hierarchical linear models to compare outcomes between the ICUconnect and usual care arms within all participants and assess for differential intervention effects in Blacks and Whites by adding a patient-race interaction term. We hypothesize that both compared to usual care as well as among Blacks compared to Whites, ICUconnect will reduce unmet palliative care needs, psychological distress and healthcare resource utilization while improving goal concordance and interpersonal processes of care. In this manuscript, we also describe steps taken to adapt the ICUconnect intervention to the COVID-19 pandemic healthcare setting. Enrollment status A total of 36 (90%) of 40 ICU physicians have been randomized and 83 (52%) of 160 patient-family dyads have been enrolled to date. Enrollment will continue until the end of 2021.

Introduction The number of older adults who receive life support in an intensive care unit (ICU), now 2 million per year, is increasing while survival remains unchanged. Because the quality of ICU-based palliative care is highly variable, we developed a mobile app intervention that integrates into the electronic health records (EHR) system called PCplanner (Palliative Care planner) with the goal of improving collaborative primary and specialist palliative care delivery in ICU settings. Objective To describe the methods of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) being conducted to compare PCplanner vs. usual care. Methods and analysis The goal of this two-arm, parallel group mixed methods RCT is to determine the clinical impact of the PCplanner intervention on outcomes of interest to patients, family members, clinicians, and policymakers over a 3-month follow up period. The primary outcome is change in unmet palliative care needs measured by the NEST instrument between baseline and 1 week post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include goal concordance of care, patient-centeredness of care, and quality of communication at 1 week post-randomization; length of stay; as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder at 3 months post-randomization. We will use general linear models for repeated measures to compare outcomes across the main effects and interactions of the factors. We hypothesize that compared to usual care, PCplanner will have a greater impact on the quality of ICU-based palliative care delivery across domains of core palliative care needs, psychological distress, patient-centeredness, and healthcare resource utilization.