The Disclosure of Bad News Over the Phone vs. in Person and its Association with Psychological Distress: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Communicating bad news such as a new cancer diagnosis to patients may have a major impact on their well-being. We investigated differences in patients' psychological distress due to the disclosure of bad news by telephone compared to in person in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We included all studies that investigated anxiety, depressive or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in adult patients in whom bad news by telephone compared to in person were disclosed. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from the inception of each database to October 18, 2022. We included randomized and non-randomized trials. RESULTS: We screened 5944 studies and included 11 studies in the qualitative analysis and 9 in the meta-analyses, including four randomized controlled trials. Overall, the quality of studies was moderate to good. There was no difference regarding psychological distress when bad news was disclosed by telephone compared to in person with similar symptom levels of anxiety (3 studies, 285 participants; standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.10 [95% CI -0.15 to 0.35]), depression (3 studies, 284 participants; SMD 0.10 [95% CI -0.30 to 0.49]), and PTSD (2 studies, 171 participants; SMD -0.01 [95% CI -0.48 to 0.36]). Results were similar for satisfaction with care. DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis found no difference regarding psychological distress regardless if bad news were disclosed by telephone or in person, but there were overall only few and heterogeneous studies with a small number of eligible patients. The findings suggest that the modality of disclosure might play a secondary role and the way in which the bad news are communicated might be more important.

Post-intensive care syndrome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A prospective observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive care unit patients are at risk for post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), which includes psychological, physical and/or cognitive sequelae after their hospital stay. Our aim was to investigate PICS in adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: In this prospective observational cohort study, we assessed risks for PICS at 3 and 12-month follow-up within the following domains: a) physical impairment (EuroQol [EQ-5D-3L]), b) cognitive functioning (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] score >1, modified Rankin Scale [mRS] >2) and c) psychological burden (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS], Impact of Event Scale-Revised [IES-R]). RESULTS: At 3 months, 69/139 patients (50%) met the definition of PICS including 37% in the physical domain, 25% in the cognitive domain and 13% in the psychological domain. Intubation (OR 2.3, 95%CI 1.1 to 5,0 p = 0.03), sedatives (OR 3.4, 95%CI 1 to 11, p = 0.045), mRS at discharge (OR 4.3, 95%CI 1.70 to 11.01, p = 0.002), CPC at discharge (OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.4 to 7.6, p = 0.005) and post-discharge work loss (OR 13.4, 95%CI 1.7 to 107.5, p = 0.014) were significantly associated with PICS. At 12 months, 52/110 (47%) patients had PICS, which was associated with prolonged duration of rehabilitation, higher APACHE scores, and higher mRS and CPC scores at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of long-term OHCA survivors show PICS after 3 and 12 months. These high numbers call for more emphasis on appropriate screening and treatment in this patient population. Future studies should evaluate whether early identification of these patients enables preventive strategies and treatment options.

Long-term Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Data on long-term survival beyond 12 months after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of a presumed cardiac cause are scarce. Objective: To investigate the long-term survival of adult patients after surviving the initial hospital stay for an OHCA. Data Sources: A systematic search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases was performed from database inception to March 25, 2021. Study Selection: Clinical studies reporting long-term survival after OHCA were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria according to a preregistered study protocol. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves using an iterative algorithm and then pooled to generate survival curves. As a separate analysis, an aggregate data meta-analysis was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was long-term survival (>12 months) after OHCA for patients surviving to hospital discharge or 30 days after OHCA. Results: The search identified 15 347 reports, of which 21 studies (11 800 patients) were included in the Kaplan-Meier-based meta-analysis and 33 studies (16 933 patients) in an aggregate data meta-analysis. In the Kaplan-Meier-based analysis, the median survival time for patients surviving to hospital discharge was 5.0 years (IQR, 2.3-7.9 years). The estimated survival rates were 82.8% (95% CI, 81.9%-83.7%) at 3 years, 77.0% (95% CI, 75.9%-78.0%) at 5 years, 63.9% (95% CI, 62.3%-65.4%) at 10 years, and 57.5% (95% CI, 54.8%-60.1%) at 15 years. Compared with patients with a nonshockable initial rhythm, patients with a shockable rhythm had a lower risk of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.39; P < .001). Different analyses, including an aggregate data meta-analysis, confirmed these results. Conclusions and Relevance: In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, long-term survival after 10 years in patients surviving the initial hospital stay after OHCA was between 62% and 64%. Additional research is needed to understand and improve the long-term survival in this vulnerable patient population.

Perception of physicians and nursing staff members regarding outside versus bedside ward rounds: ancillary analysis of the randomised BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE trial.

BACKGROUND: We recently compared the effects of bedside and outside the room ward rounds on patients' knowledge about their medical care. Here, we report preferences of medical and nursing staff members regarding outside versus bedside ward rounds. METHODS: Within this ancillary project of a large multicentre randomised controlled trial, we prospectively conducted a survey of medical and nursing staff members participating in the weekly consultant ward rounds in the internal medicine division of three Swiss teaching hospitals between July 2017 and October 2019. Participants were asked about their preferences on outside versus bedside ward rounds. The primary endpoint was satisfaction of healthcare workers with the ward round measured with a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100. RESULTS: Between July 2017 and October 2019, 919 patients were included in the trial, and we received 891 survey responses (nurses 15.6%, residents 26.8%, attending physicians 29.6%, consultants 7.8% and chief physicians 20.2%. In the overall analysis, mean (± standard deviation) satisfaction of healthcare workers was higher with outside the room than bedside ward rounds (78.03 ± 16.96 versus 68.25 ± 21.10 respectively; age-, gender- and centre-adjusted difference of -10.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12.73 to -8.19; p <0.001). Healthcare workers reported better time management, more discussion of sensitive topics and less discomfort when case presentations were conducted outside the room. A stratified subgroup analysis considering the profession, however, showed strong differences, with nurses being more satisfied with bedside rounds (69.20 ± 20.32 versus 65.32 ± 20.92, respectively; adjusted difference 4.35, 95% CI -1.79 to 10.51; p <0.001), whereas attending physicians showed higher satisfaction with outside the room rounds (82.63 ± 13.87 versus 66.59 ± 21.82; adjusted difference -16.51, 95% CI -20.29 to -12.72; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: While bedside ward rounds are considered more patient centred and are preferred by the nursing staff, physicians prefer outside the room presentation of patients during ward rounds because of the perceived better discussion of sensitive topics, better time management and less staff discomfort. Continuous training including medical communication techniques may help to increase satisfaction of physicians with bedside ward rounds. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03210987.

Activation of the kynurenine pathway predicts mortality and neurological outcome in cardiac arrest patients: A validation study.

PURPOSE: Activation of the kynurenine pathway (KP) has been shown to predict outcome in cardiac arrest (CA) patients. We validated these findings in a Swiss cohort. METHODS: We measured admission tryptophan and kynurenine levels in 270 consecutive CA patients (38 in-hospital CA) and investigated associations with in-hospital mortality and neurological outcome at hospital discharge. RESULTS: 120 of 270 (44%) patients died in the hospital. Compared to survivors, non-survivors showed higher median initial kynurenine levels (5.28 µmol/l [IQR 2.91 to 7.40] vs 3.58 µmol/l [IQR 2.47 to 5.46]; p < 0.001) and a higher median kynurenine/tryptophan ratio (0.10 µmol/l [IQR 0.07 to 0.17] vs 0.07 µmol/l [IQR 0.05 to 0.1]; p < 0.001). In a model adjusted for age, gender and comorbidities, kynurenine (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.27; p = 0.001) and kynurenine/tryptophan ratio (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.31; p = 0.003) were significantly associated with mortality. Results were similar for neurological outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings validate a previous study and show associations of the activation of the KP with unfavorable outcomes after CA. Future studies should evaluate whether therapeutic modulation of the KP may impact clinical outcomes after CA.

Medical futility regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation in in-hospital cardiac arrests of adult patients: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

AIM: For some patients, survival with good neurologic function after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is highly unlikely, thus CPR would be considered medically futile. Yet, in clinical practice, there are no well-established criteria, guidelines or measures to determine futility. We aimed to investigate how medical futility for CPR in adult patients is defined, measured, and associated with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status as well as to evaluate the predictive value of clinical risk scores through meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from the inception of each database up to January 22, 2021. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model. Data collection and reporting followed the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included in the systematic review and 11 in the meta-analysis. Medical futility defined by risk scores was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital mortality (5 studies, 3102 participants with Pre-Arrest Morbidity (PAM) and Prognosis After Resuscitation (PAR) score; overall RR 3.38 [95% CI 1.92-5.97]) and poor neurologic outcome/in-hospital mortality (6 studies, 115,213 participants with Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation (GO-FAR) and Prediction of Outcome for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (PIHCA) score; RR 6.93 [95% CI 6.43-7.47]). All showed high specificity (>90%) for identifying patients with poor outcome. CONCLUSION: There is no international consensus and a lack of specific definitions of CPR futility in adult patients. Clinical risk scores might aid decision-making when CPR is assumed to be futile. Future studies are needed to assess their clinical value and reliability as a measure of futility regarding CPR.

Neuron-Specific Enolase (NSE) Predicts Long-Term Mortality in Adult Patients after Cardiac Arrest: Results from a Prospective Trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) serum concentration predicts long-term mortality and poor neurological outcome in adult cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: Within this prospective observational study, we included consecutive adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiac arrest. NSE was measured upon ICU admission and on days 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. RESULTS: Of 403 patients, 176 (43.7%) survived. Median follow-up duration was 43.7 months (IQR 14.3 to 63.0 months). NSE levels on day 3 were increased more than threefold in non-survivors compared to survivors (median NSE (ng/mL) 19.8 (IQR 15.7 to 27.8) vs. 72.6 (IQR 26 to 194)) and showed the highest prognostic performance for mortality compared to other days of measurement, with an AUC of 0.81 and an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.71, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed an excellent sensitivity and negative predictive value of 100% of NSE in patients <54 years of age. CONCLUSION: NSE measured three days after cardiac arrest is associated with long-term mortality and neurological outcome and may provide prognostic information that improves clinical decision making. Particularly in the subgroup of younger patients (<54 years), NSE showed excellent negative predictive value.

Long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19: a prospective bicentric cohort study.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: There is increasing interest in better understanding of long COVID, a condition characterised by long-term sequelae ­ appearing or persisting after the typical convalescence period ­ of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Herein, we describe long-term outcomes regarding residual symptoms and psychological distress in hospitalised patients 1 year after COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included consecutive adult patients hospitalised for confirmed COVID-19 in two Swiss tertiary-care hospitals between March and June 2020. The primary endpoint was evidence of long COVID 1 year after discharge, defined as ≥1 persisting or new symptom related to COVID-19, from a predefined list of symptoms. Secondary endpoints included psychological distress and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RESULTS: Among 90 patients included in the study, 63 (70%) had symptoms of long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation, particularly fatigue (46%), concentration difficulties (31%), shortness of breath (21%) and post-exertion malaise (20%). Three predictors, namely duration of hospitalisation (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00­1.22; p = 0.041), severity of illness (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04­1.37; p = 0.013), and self-perceived overall health status 30 days after hospitalisation (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94­1.00; p = 0.027) were associated with long COVID. Regarding secondary endpoints, 16 (18%) experienced psychological distress and 3 (3.3%) patients had symptoms of PTSD. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of COVID-19 patients report symptoms of long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation, which negatively affects their quality of life. The most important risk factors were severe initial presentation of COVID-19 with long hospital stays.

Interventions to Improve Communication at Hospital Discharge and Rates of Readmission: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Shortcomings in the education of patients at hospital discharge are associated with higher risks for treatment failure and hospital readmission. Whether improving communication at discharge through specific interventions has an association with patient-relevant outcomes remains unclear. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of communication interventions at hospital discharge with readmission rates and other patient-relevant outcomes. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were systematically searched from the inception of each database to February 28, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials that randomized patients to receiving a discharge communication intervention or a control group were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data on outcomes and trial and patient characteristics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs are reported. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hospital readmission, and secondary outcomes included adherence to treatment regimen, patient satisfaction, mortality, and emergency department reattendance 30 days after hospital discharge. Results: We included 60 randomized clinical trials with a total of 16 070 patients for the qualitative synthesis and 19 trials with a total of 3953 patients for the quantitative synthesis of the primary outcome. Of these, 11 trials had low risk of bias, 6 trials had high risk of bias, and 2 trials had unclear risk of bias. Communication interventions at discharge were significantly associated with lower readmission rates (179 of 1959 patients [9.1%] in intervention groups vs 270 of 1994 patients [13.5%] in control groups; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84), higher adherence to treatment regimen (1729 of 2009 patients [86.1%] in intervention groups vs 1599 of 2024 patients [79.0%] in control groups; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37), and higher patient satisfaction (1187 of 1949 patients [60.9%] in intervention groups vs 991 of 2002 patients [49.5%] in control groups; RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that communication interventions at discharge are significantly associated with fewer hospital readmissions, higher treatment adherence, and higher patient satisfaction and thus are important to facilitate the transition of care.