The ACS-TQIP palliative care guidelines at two level I trauma centres: a prospective study of patient and caregiver satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: To measure trauma patient and caregiver satisfaction before and after implementation of standardised palliative care (PC) guidelines. METHODS: Prospective pre-post study at two level-I trauma centres. PC satisfaction surveys were administered prior to discharge for consented trauma patients (Family Satisfaction with Advanced Cancer Scale, Patient (FAMCARE-P13) survey)≥55 years, and their caregivers (FAMCARE survey), from 1 November 2016 to 30 November 2018. Standardised PC guidelines were implemented January 2018 and included consultations, prognostication assessments, identification of proxies, review of advanced directives and do not resuscitate orders within 24 hours of admission, while advanced goals of care, formal family meetings and spiritual care support were recommended within 72 hours of admission. Generalised linear models were used to determine whether differences in patient or caregiver satisfaction existed pre versus post implementation. RESULTS: There were 572 patients (299 pre; 273 post) and 595 caregivers (334 pre; 261 post) included. Overall patient satisfaction significantly increased post implementation (82.0 vs 86.0, p=0.001). After adjustment, the implementation of the guidelines was an independent predictor of higher overall patient satisfaction (least squares mean (LSM= (83.8% (95%CI 81.2%-86.5%) vs 80.3% (77.7%-82.9%), p=0.003)). Compared with preimplementation, patient satisfaction was significantly higher post implementation in the following domains: information giving (80.9 vs 85.5, p=0.001), followed by physical care (82.2 vs 86.0, p=0.002), availability of care (83.4 vs 86.8, p=0.007) and psychosocial care (84.7 vs 87.6, p=0.04). No significant differences in caregiver satisfaction were found before or after adjustment (LSMpre: 83.1% (95%CI 80.9%-85.3%) vs. post: 82.4% (80.3%-84.5%), p=0.56)) CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the implementation of PC guidelines significantly improved patient satisfaction following traumatic injury, while maintaining robust caregiver satisfaction.

Comparing satisfaction of trauma patients 55 years or older to their caregivers during palliative care: Who faces the burden?

BACKGROUND: Many studies report on the patient-caregiver relationship during palliative care (PC); however, this relationship has yet to be examined following traumatic injury. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included trauma patients (≥55 years) and their primary caregivers admitted at two level I trauma centers for 2 years (November 2016 to November 2018), who received PC and who completed satisfaction surveys before discharge; surveys were analyzed by four domains: information giving, availability of care, physical care, and psychosocial care, and by PC assessments: consultations, prognostications, formal family meetings (FFMs), and advanced goals of care discussions. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients and caregivers who were satisfied (defined as ≥80%) and was analyzed using McNemar's test. Adjusted mixed models identified PC assessments that were associated with satisfaction scores ≥80% for patients and caregivers. RESULTS: Of the 441-patient and 441-caregiver pairs, caregivers were significantly less satisfied than patients during prognostications (information giving, physical care), FFMs (information giving, physical care), and consultations (physical care), while caregivers were significantly more satisfied than patients during advanced goals of care discussions (availability of care, psychosocial care). After adjustment, significant predictors of caregiver satisfaction (≥80%) included longer patient hospital length of stay (>4 days), caring for a male patient (physical care, availability of care), higher caregiver age (≥55 years; availability of care), and higher patient age (≥65 years; psychosocial care). Conversely, all PC assessments decreased odds of satisfaction for caregivers in every domain except physical care. Significant predictors of higher patient satisfaction included FFMs (for every domain) and PC consultations (psychosocial care), and decreased odds included advanced goals of care discussions and prognostication assessments (information giving, psychosocial care). CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care increased satisfaction of patients, especially family meetings and consultations, while assessments were predictive of lower caregiver satisfaction, suggesting that caregivers may be experiencing some of the patient burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, level IV.

Examining satisfaction of older adult patients and their caregivers following traumatic injury: a cross-sectional study of three level I trauma centres.

OBJECTIVE: To explore satisfaction of care received by older adult patients and their primary caregivers following traumatic injury. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study using the FAMCARE (Family Satisfaction with Advanced Cancer Care Scale) satisfaction surveys prior to discharge. SETTING: Three level I trauma centres in Colorado from November 2016 to December 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Trauma patients ≥55 years old and their primary caregivers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall mean (SD) satisfaction, satisfaction <80% vs ≥80%, and mean satisfaction by survey conceptual structures. RESULTS: Of the 319 patients and 336 caregivers included, the overall mean (SD) patient satisfaction was 81.7% (15.0%) and for caregivers was 83.6% (13.4%). The area with the highest mean for patient and caregiver satisfaction was psychosocial care (85.4% and 86.9%, respectively). Information giving was the lowest for patients (80.4%) and caregivers (80.9%). When individual items were examined, patients were significantly more satisfied with 'availability of nurses to answer questions' (84.5 (15.3) vs 87.4 (14.8), p=0.02) and significantly less satisfied with 'speed with which symptoms were treated' (80.6 (17.9) vs 84.0 (17.0), p=0.03) compared with caregivers. Patients with a history of smoking (least squares mean difference: -0.096 (-0.18 to -0.07), p<0.001) and hospital discharge destination to an outside facility of care (adjusted OR: 1.6 (1.0 to 2.4), p=0.048) were identified as independent predictors of lower overall satisfaction in generalised linear and logistic models, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that patients' medical history was driving both patient and caregiver satisfaction. Patient characteristics and expectations need to be considered when tailoring healthcare interventions.

Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures.

Background: Catheter-based regional analgesia has been proposed as an alternative to systemic analgesia for patients with multiple rib fractures (MRF). This study sought to compare the efficacy of regional techniques for decreasing pain and improving clinical outcomes. Study design: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to four nonacademic trauma centers over two years (from 07/1/2014 to 06/30/2016). Study inclusion was MRF (≥3 fractures) with no other severe injuries. Two primary regional analgesia techniques were utilized and compared: continuous intercostal nerve blocks (CINB) and epidural (EPI) analgesia. The primary outcome, average pain scores on treatment, was examined using a repeated measures, linear regression mixed model. Secondary outcomes included hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ICU admission and hospital readmission, pulmonary complications, and incentive spirometry volumes during treatment, and were examined with univariate statistics. Results: There were 339 patients with isolated MRF; 85 (25%) required regional analgesia (CINB, n=41; EPI, n=44) and the remaining 75% received systemic analgesia only (IV, n=195; PO, n=59). There were demographic and clinical differences between regional analgesia and systemic analgesia groups; on the contrary, there were no demographic or clinical differences between the CINB and EPI groups. Adjusted pain scores were similar for the EPI and CINB groups (4.0 vs 4.4, p=0.49). Secondary outcomes were worse in the EPI group compared to the CINB group: less improvement in incentive spirometry volume (p=0.004), longer ICU LOS (p=0.03), longer hospital LOS (p<0.001), and more ICU admission (p<0.001). Conclusion: In patients requiring regional analgesia, pain management was equivalent with CINB and EPI, but CINB was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes. CINB might offer an efficient alternative for pain control in patients with MRF.