Shared decision-making in advance care planning among hospitalized older COVID-19 patients: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, it is customary to discuss directives regarding resuscitation, intubation, and ICU-admission with patients and/or their relatives upon hospital-admission. The outcome of this discussion is documented in a code status. Ideally, these advance care planning (ACP)-related decisions are made by a patient (and/or their relatives) and a professional together in a shared decision-making (SDM) process, to improve patient satisfaction and prevent undesired care. Given the bad outcomes in older COVID-19 patients, it is particularly important to discuss the code status upon admission. This study aims to describe the practice of SDM regarding code status during the COVID-pandemic. Specific aims were to find out to what extend patients took part in this decision-making process and whether all key elements of SDM for a shared decision were documented in medical reports. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included COVID-19 patients aged 70 years and older, admitted to two large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Data about code status and the decision-making process were extracted from electronic healthcare records. RESULTS: Code status was documented for 274 of 275 included patients. Patient participation in the decision-making process was described in 48%. In 19% all key elements of shared decision-making have been described. Key elements of SDM were defined as the presence of a completed code status form, the presence of clinical notes showing that both patient's wishes and values and the opinion of the healthcare professional about the predicted outcome was taken into consideration and clinical notes of a patient-healthcare professional interaction during the admission. CONCLUSION: Our results show that a proper SDM process regarding code status is possible, even in hectic times like the COVID-19-pandemic. However, shared decision-making was not common practice in older patients with COVID-19 regarding code status (an ACP-related decision) in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Only in 19% of the patients, all key elements of SDM regarding code status were described.

Professionals' views on shared decision-making in severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into professionals' perceptions of and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) in the treatment of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: A semistructured interview study was performed in the heart centres of academic and large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between June and December 2020. Cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants (n=21) involved in the decision-making process for treatment of severe AS were interviewed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse and report patterns in the data. RESULTS: Four primary themes were generated: (1) the concept of SDM, (2) knowledge, (3) communication and interaction, and (4) implementation of SDM. Not all respondents considered patient participation as an element of SDM. They experienced a discrepancy between patients' wishes and treatment options. Respondents explained that not knowing patient preferences for health improvement hinders SDM and complicating patient characteristics for patient participation were perceived. A shared responsibility for improving SDM was suggested for patients and all professionals involved in the decision-making process for severe AS. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals struggle to make highly complex treatment decisions part of SDM and to embed patients' expectations of treatment and patients' preferences. Additionally, organisational constraints complicate the SDM process. To ensure sustainable high-quality care, professionals should increase their awareness of patient participation in SDM, and collaboration in the pathway for decision-making in severe AS is required to support the documentation and availability of information according to the principles of SDM.

Association between Clinical Frailty Scale score and hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19 (COMET): an international, multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe. METHODS: This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS1-3), mildly frail (CFS4-5), or frail (CFS6-9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities). FINDINGS: Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55-77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04-3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·16-2·06], p=0·0030; age ≥65 years: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·90 [2·12-3·97], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·64 [1·20-2·25], p=0·0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·22 [1·08-4·57], p=0·030; CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·08 [0·48-2·39], p=0·86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·21-1·97], p=0·0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·71 [0·55-0·92], p=0·0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·96 [1·98-4·43], p<0·0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·93 [0·63-1·38], p=0·72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·27 [0·92-1·75], p=0·14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·66 [0·47-0·93], p=0·018). INTERPRETATION: The results of this study suggest that CFS score is a suitable risk marker for hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19. However, treatment decisions based on the CFS in patients younger than 65 years should be made with caution. FUNDING: LOEY Foundation.