The Impact of a Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) Program to Diagnose and Manage Ascites in Home-based Palliative Care.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) program among people with ascites receiving home-based palliative care by measuring the association of POCUS with ascites-related days spent out of the home, compared with outcomes before POCUS implementation. DESIGN: Open cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults who had an ascites-related procedure (ARP) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015 (ie, pre-POCUS) and January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020 (ie, POCUS). An ARP was defined as using ultrasound to diagnose suspected ascites or a paracentesis with or without ultrasound guidance to manage ascites. METHODS: The main outcome was the rate of ascites-related days spent out of the home, defined as days out of the home for either ARPs or because of ascites-related hospital admissions, relative to the time patients were at risk for spending ascites-related days out of the home. RESULTS: Among the 103 pre-POCUS patients (mean age 68.0; 50.4% female), there were 161 ARPs with 12.4% occurring at home. Among the 127 POCUS patients (mean age 74.0; 52.0% female) there were 193 ARPs with 82.4% occurring at home. POCUS was associated with a significantly lower rate of ascites-related days spent outside the home (pre-POCUS rate of 33 days per 1000 patient days vs POCUS rate of 9 days; unadjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR), 3.86; 95% CI, 2.95-5.12; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.27-11.54; P = .02). POCUS was also associated with a higher likelihood of ARPs occurring in the home [unadjusted odds ratio (OR), 32.44; 95% CI, 18.15-59.90; P < .001; adjusted OR, 48.99; 95% CI, 21.04-114.10; P < .001]. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The use of POCUS may contribute to maximizing time spent at home for palliative care patients with ascites. These findings support the use of POCUS for home-based palliative care programs.

Implementation of a continuous admission model reduces the length of stay of patients on an internal medicine clinical teaching unit.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing hospital operations is a critical issue facing healthcare systems. Reducing unnecessary variation in patient flow is likely to improve efficiency and optimize capacity for hospital inpatients. The objective of this study was to determine whether changing admissions, from a "bolus" system to a "drip" system, would result in a smoothed daily discharge rate, and reduce the length of stay of patients on a General Internal Medicine clinical teaching unit over a period of 1 year. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the General Internal Medicine inpatient service at Toronto General Hospital for the 6-month periods from March to August during 2 consecutive years. Length of stay distributions and daily discharge rate variations were compared between the 2 study periods. RESULTS: There were a total of 2734 discharges, 1446 occurring in the pre-change period, and 1288 in the post-change period. There was overall smoothing of the daily discharge rates, and a reduction of 0.3 days in median length of stay in the post-change period (P = 0.0065). CONCLUSIONS: Restructuring the admission system to achieve constant daily admissions to each care team resulted in a smoothing of daily discharge rates and improved operational efficiency with shorter lengths of stay.

Why do patients agree to a "Do not resuscitate" or "Full code" order? Perspectives of medical inpatients.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients who die in hospital have a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) order in place at the time of their death, yet we know very little about why some patients request or agree to a DNR order, why others don't, and how they view discussions of resuscitation status. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews of English-speaking medical inpatients who had clearly requested a DNR or full code (FC) order after a discussion with their admitting team, and analyzed the transcripts using a modified grounded-theory approach. RESULTS: We achieved conceptual saturation after conducting 44 interviews (27 DNR, 17 FC) over a 4-month period. Patients in the DNR group were much older than those in the FC group, but they had broadly similar admission diagnoses and comorbidities. DNR patients reported much greater familiarity with the subject and described a more positive experience than FC patients with their resuscitation discussions. Participants typically requested FC or DNR orders based on personal, relational or philosophical considerations, but these considerations manifested differently depending on the participant's preference for resuscitation. Most FC patients stated that would not want a prolonged period of life support, and they would not want resuscitation in the event of a poor quality of life. FC and DNR patients understood resuscitation and DNR orders differently. DNR patients described resuscitation in graphic, concrete terms that emphasized suffering and futility, and DNR orders in terms of comfort or natural processes. FC patients understood resuscitation in an abstract sense as something that restores life, while DNR orders were associated with substandard care or even euthanasia. CONCLUSION: Our study identified important differences and commonalities between the perspectives of DNR and FC patients. We hope that this information can be used to help physicians better understand the needs of their patients when discussing resuscitation.