ABSTRACT
Goals-of-care discussions at end-of-life are associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced treatment burdens, reduced family and healthcare worker distress and healthcare costs, while achieving equal life-expectancy. It is unclear how goals-of-care discussions should occur. The objective of the study was to determine which patients could benefit, requirements, content, documentation, and harms and benefits of emergency medicine goals-of-care discussions. We sought primary evidence on goals-of-care discussions in EDs with adult patients nearing end-of-life, published in English after 1989. Data sources included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and reference lists of included articles. One thousand nine hundred and twenty abstracts were screened, five articles selected. There was no consensus on the meaning of goals-of-care, which is often confused with advanced care planning and treatment limitation. Emergency clinicians can identify most patients needing discussions following training. There was no evidence for how to involve stakeholders, nor how to adapt conversations to meet cultural and linguistically diverse needs. Expert panels have suggested requirements and content for conversations with little supporting evidence. There was no evidence for how emergency conversations differ to those in other settings, nor for harms or benefits for holding goals-of-care conversations in EDs. Increased ED goals-of-care conversations increased hospice referral and reduced in-patient admissions. Most studies were of moderate quality only, outcomes were not standardised and sample sizes were small. 'Goals-of-care' is used inconsistently across the literature. This is the first systematic review regarding goals-of-care discussions in EDs. Further research is needed on all aspects of these conversations.
Subject(s)
Communication , Emergency Service, Hospital , Patient Care Planning , Terminal Care/methods , Adult , Humans , Physician-Patient RelationsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Post-operative acute kidney injury after cardiopulmonary bypass (AKI-CPB) for cardiac surgery is a frequent complication. It may require renal replacement therapy (RRT), which is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality. This review explores the efficacy of proposed pharmacological and non-surgical renal protective strategies. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was done using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases. Keywords included were cardiopulmonary bypass, cardiac surgery, coronary artery bypass, renal protection and renal preservation. Eligible articles consisted of all studies on patients who had undergone cardiac surgery via CPB with an outcome of AKI and/or RRT reported. All studies underwent a quality check via the risk of bias tool. The three most researched interventions (based on number of randomized controlled trials and total patients analysed) and their renal outcomes were then analysed with Review Manager Software. RESULTS: Eighty-eight articles were extracted. A total of 26 management strategies for renal protection following CPB were identified. N-acetylcysteine (NAC), remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) and the use of volatile anaesthetic agents (VAAs) were further analysed. NAC, RIPC and VAA had no statistically significant benefit in reducing either AKI-CPB or the need for RRT following CPB. CONCLUSION: NAC, RIPC and VAA were found to have no statistical significant benefit in reducing either AKI-CPB or the need for RRT following CPB. There remains clinical uncertainty with all currently proposed pharmacological and non-surgical renal protective strategies for CPB. Future research in this area should analyse the effects of combined interventions or specifically focus on 'at-risk' patients.
