Impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on pain, agitation and delirium management in an intensive care unit: an experience of a Canadian community hospital in conducting a quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines suggest that routine assessment, treatment, and prevention of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) is essential to improving patient outcomes as delirium is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Despite the well-established improvements on patient outcomes, adherence to PAD guidelines is poor in community intensive care units (ICU). This quality improvement (QI) project aims to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on PAD management in a Canadian community ICU and to describe the experience of a Canadian community hospital in conducting a QI project. METHODS: A ten-member PAD advisory committee was formed to develop and implement the intervention. The intervention consisted of a multidisciplinary rounds script, poster, interviews, visual reminders, educational modules, pamphlet and video. The 4-week intervention targeted nurses, family members, physicians, and the multidisciplinary team. An uncontrolled, before-and-after study methodology was used. Adherence to PAD assessment guidelines by nurses was measured over a 6-week pre-intervention and over a 6-week post-intervention periods. RESULTS: Data on 430 and 406 patient-days (PD) were available for analysis during the pre- and post- intervention periods, respectively. The intervention did not improve the proportion of PD with guideline compliance to the assessment of pain (23.4% vs. 22.4%, p=0.80), agitation (42.9% vs. 38.9%, p=0.28), nor delirium (35.2% vs. 29.6%, p=0.10) by nurses. DISCUSSION: The implementation of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on PAD assessment did not result in significant improvements in guideline adherence in a community ICU. Barriers to knowledge translation are apparent at multiple levels including the personal level (low completion rates on educational modules), interventional level (under-collection of data), and organisational level (coinciding with hospital accreditation education). Our next steps include reintroduction of education modules using organisation approved platforms, updating existing ICU policy, updating admission order sets, and conducting audit and feedback.

Impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on pain, agitation and delirium management in a Canadian community intensive care unit: a quality improvement study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Pain and agitation are closely linked to the development of delirium, which affects 60%-87% of critically ill patients. Delirium is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Clinical guidelines that suggest routine assessment, treatment and prevention of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) is crucial to improving patient outcomes. However, the adoption of and adherence to PAD guidelines remain suboptimal, especially in community hospitals. The aim of this quality improvement study is to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on PAD management in a Canadian community intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This is a quality improvement, uncontrolled, before-and-after study of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention targeting nurses (educational modules, visual reminders), family members (interviews, educational pamphlets and an educational video), physicians (multidisciplinary round script) and the multidisciplinary team as a whole (delirium poster). We will collect data every day for 6 weeks before implementing the intervention. Data collection will include clinical information and information on process of care. We will then implement the intervention. Four weeks after, we will collect data daily for 6 weeks to evaluate the effect of the intervention. On the basis of the volume of the ICU, we expect to enroll approximately 280 patients. We have obtained local ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB 18-040-C). INTERPRETATION: The results of this quality improvement study will provide information on adherence to PAD guidelines in a Canadian community ICU setting. They will also supply information on the feasibility of implementing multifaceted and multidisciplinary PAD interventions in community ICUs.

Correction: Communication Tools for End-of-Life Decision-Making in Ambulatory Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150671.].

Educational interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Practicing healthcare professionals and graduates exiting training programs are often ill-equipped to facilitate important discussions about end-of-life care with patients and their families. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions aimed at providing healthcare professionals with training in end-of-life communication skills, compared to usual curriculum. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the date of inception to July 2014 for randomized control trials (RCT) and prospective observational studies of educational training interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication skills. To be eligible, interventions had to provide communication skills training related to end-of-life decision making; other interventions (e.g. breaking bad news, providing palliation) were excluded. Our primary outcomes were self-efficacy, knowledge and end-of-life communication scores with standardized patient encounters. Sufficiently similar studies were pooled in a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Of 5727 candidate articles, 20 studies (6 RCTs, 14 Observational) were included in this review. Compared to usual teaching, educational interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication skills were associated with greater self-efficacy (8 studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.57;95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75; P < 0.001; very low quality evidence), more knowledge (4 studies, SMD 0.76;95% CI 0.40-1.12; p < 0.001; low quality evidence), and improvements in communication scores (8 studies, SMD 0.69; 95% CI 0.41-0.96; p < 0.001; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether these educational interventions affect patient-level outcomes. CONCLUSION: Very low to low quality evidence suggests that end-of-life communication training may improve healthcare professionals' self-efficacy, knowledge, and EoL communication scores compared to usual teaching. Further studies comparing two active educational interventions are recommended with a continued focus on contextually relevant high-level outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014012913.

Communication tools for end-of-life decision-making in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: For many patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), preferences for end-of-life care are unknown, and clinicians and substitute decision-makers are required to make decisions about the goals of care on their behalf. We conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of structured communication tools for end-of-life decision-making, compared to usual care, upon the number of documented goals of care discussions, documented code status, and decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatments, in adult patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: We searched multiple databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and Cochrane from database inception until July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened articles, assessed eligibility, verified data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the tool described by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Pooled estimates of effect (relative risk, standardized mean difference, or mean difference), were calculated where sufficient data existed. GRADE was used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: We screened 5785 abstracts and reviewed the full text of 424 articles, finding 168 eligible articles, including 19 studies in the ICU setting. The use of communication tools increased documentation of goals-of-care discussions (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.55, 7.75, p = 0.020, very low-quality evidence), but did not have an effect on code status documentation (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96, 1.10, p = 0.540, low-quality evidence) or decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89, 1.08, p = 0.70, low-quality evidence). The use of such tools was associated with a decrease in multiple measures of health care resource utilization, including duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -1.9 days, 95% CI -3.26, -0.54, p = 0.006, very low-quality evidence), length of ICU stay (MD -1.11 days, 95% CI -2.18, -0.03, p = 0.04, very low-quality evidence), and health care costs (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.5, -0.15, p < 0.001, very low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Structured communication tools may improve documentation of EOL decision making and may result in lower resource use. The supporting evidence is low to very low in quality. Further high-quality randomized studies of simple communication interventions are needed to determine whether structured, rather than ad hoc, approaches to end-of-life decision-making improve patient-level, family-level, and system-level outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014012913.

Communication Tools for End-of-Life Decision-Making in Ambulatory Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with serious illness, and their families, state that better communication and decision-making with healthcare providers is a high priority to improve the quality of end-of-life care. Numerous communication tools to assist patients, family members, and clinicians in end-of-life decision-making have been published, but their effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine, amongst adults in ambulatory care settings, the effect of structured communication tools for end-of-life decision-making on completion of advance care planning. METHODS: We searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized intervention studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Database of Randomized Controlled Trials from database inception until July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each of the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies, including 46 RCTs, were found. The majority evaluated communication tools in older patients (age >50) with no specific medical condition, but many specifically evaluated populations with cancer, lung, heart, neurologic, or renal disease. Most studies compared the use of communication tools against usual care, but several compared the tools to less-intensive advance care planning tools. The use of structured communication tools increased: the frequency of advance care planning discussions/discussions about advance directives (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.25-4.26, p = 0.007, low quality evidence) and the completion of advance directives (ADs) (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.43-2.59, p<0.001, low quality evidence); concordance between AD preferences and subsequent medical orders for use or non-use of life supporting treatment (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.39, p = 0.028, very low quality evidence, 1 observational study); and concordance between the care desired and care received by patients (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, p = 0.004, low quality evidence, 2 RCTs). CONCLUSIONS: The use of structured communication tools may increase the frequency of discussions about and completion of advance directives, and concordance between the care desired and the care received by patients. The use of structured communication tools rather than an ad-hoc approach to end-of-life decision-making should be considered, and the selection and implementation of such tools should be tailored to address local needs and context. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014012913.

Interprofessional sepsis education module: a pilot study.

Although there is an increasing emphasis on interprofessional collaboration for safer health care systems, there remains a paucity of opportunities for postgraduate trainees to engage in formal interprofessional education (IPE). Current opportunities for interprofessional learning, such as simulation sessions, typically do not provide true IPE because they often utilize actors or confederates as support staff, making residents the only stakeholders in the education experience. Here, we describe a flexible educational module designed to provide genuine IPE for physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists. We outline how simulation, feedback, and group discussions can be used to teach interprofessional team communication, collaboration, and crew resource management skills-while, at the same time, also teaching a highly relevant medical topic (sepsis management) and thus resulting in learner engagement and motivation.