Intensive care doctors and nurses personal preferences for Intensive Care, as compared to the general population: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: To test the hypothesis that Intensive Care Unit (ICU) doctors and nurses differ in their personal preferences for treatment from the general population, and whether doctors and nurses make different choices when thinking about themselves, as compared to when they are treating a patient. METHODS: Cross sectional, observational study conducted in 13 ICUs in Australia in 2017 using a discrete choice experiment survey. Respondents completed a series of choice sets, based on hypothetical situations which varied in the severity or likelihood of: death, cognitive impairment, need for prolonged treatment, need for assistance with care or requiring residential care. RESULTS: A total of 980 ICU staff (233 doctors and 747 nurses) participated in the study. ICU staff place the highest value on avoiding ending up in a dependent state. The ICU staff were more likely to choose to discontinue therapy when the prognosis was worse, compared with the general population. There was consensus between ICU staff personal views and the treatment pathway likely to be followed in 69% of the choices considered by nurses and 70% of those faced by doctors. In 27% (1614/5945 responses) of the nurses and 23% of the doctors (435/1870 responses), they felt that aggressive treatment would be continued for the hypothetical patient but they would not want that for themselves. CONCLUSION: The likelihood of returning to independence (or not requiring care assistance) was reported as the most important factor for ICU staff (and the general population) in deciding whether to receive ongoing treatments. Goals of care discussions should focus on this, over likelihood of survival.

Population Preferences for Treatments When Critically Ill: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Many patients in the intensive care unit are too unwell to participate in shared decision making or have not previously documented their wishes. In these situations, understanding the values of the general population could help doctors provide appropriate guidance to surrogate decision makers. METHODS: Using a discrete choice experiment design, we conducted an online survey using an Australian panel. Participants were asked about their willingness to accept treatments, faced with a variety of possible outcomes and probabilities (low, moderate or high). The outcomes were across four domains: loss of functional autonomy, pain, cognitive disability and degree of burden on others. Demographic details, prior experience of intensive care unit and current health conditions were also collected. Data were analysed using logistic regression, predicting whether respondents choose to continue active treatment or not. RESULTS: Nine hundred and eighty-four respondents, representative of age and sex completed the web-based survey. With the increasing likelihood of negative post-intensive care unit sequelae, there was a higher probability of the respondent preferring to stop ongoing active treatment, with the largest coefficients being on caring assistance and the need for full-time residential care. Those who identified as very religious, were younger or who had children under 5 years of age were more likely to choose to continue active treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents valued their independence as the most important factor in deciding whether to receive ongoing medical treatments in the intensive care unit. When clinicians are unable to obtain specific patient information, they should consider framing their decision making around the likelihood of the patient achieving functional independence rather than survival.

The prevalence of perceptions of mismatch between treatment intensity and achievable goals of care in the intensive care unit: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence of perceptions of patients receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity, as perceived by intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare providers, and to assess the congruence of perceptions between providers. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, observational study conducted in 21 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand, patient prevalence data was linked to an ICU staff survey to describe the extent to which patient treatment intensity was matched to the perceived prognosis and patient wishes. RESULTS: Of the 307 study patients, 62 (20.2%) were reported to be receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity by at least one ICU healthcare professional. For reported mismatch, there was consensus amongst staff members for 52/62 (84%) of patients. Patients were significantly more likely to receive mismatched treatments if they were more severely unwell (APACHE II score > 20 vs. ≤ 20), odds ratio OR 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63-3.37, p < 0.0001, if they were an emergency admission (OR 3.05, CI 1.18-7.89, p = 0.0212) or if they had an advance care directive (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.66-8.16, p = 0.0013). CONCLUSIONS: Being more severely unwell, being an emergency admission or having an advance care directive made patients more likely to be perceived as having a mismatch between the intensity of treatments provided and either the achievable goals of care, expected prognosis or patient's wishes.

A comparison of the opinions of intensive care unit staff and family members of the treatment intensity received by patients admitted to an intensive care unit: A multicentre survey.

BACKGROUND: Achieving shared decision-making in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging because of limited patient capacity, leading to a reliance on surrogate decision-makers. Prior research shows that ICU staff members often perceive that patients receive inappropriate or futile treatments while some surrogate decision-makers of patients admitted to the ICU report inadequate communication with physicians. Therefore, understanding the perceptions of both ICU staff and surrogate decision-makers around wishes for ICU treatments is an essential component to improve these situations. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compare perceptions of ICU staff with surrogate decision-makers about the intensity and appropriateness of treatments received by patients and analyse the causes of any incongruence. METHODS: A multicentred, single-day survey of staff and surrogate decision-makers of ICU inpatients was conducted across four Australian ICUs in 2014. Patients were linked to a larger prospective observational study, allowing comparison of patient outcomes. RESULTS: Twelve of 32 patients were identified as having a mismatch between staff and surrogate decision-maker perceptions. For these 12 patients, all 12 surrogate decision-makers believed that the treatment intensity the patient was receiving was of the appropriate intensity and duration. Mismatched patients were more likely to be emergency admissions to ICU compared with nonmismatched patients (0.0% vs 42.1%, p = 0.012) and have longer ICU admissions (7.5 vs 3, p = 0.022). There were no significant differences in perceived communication (p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Family members did not share the same perceptions of treatment with ICU staff. This may result from difficulty in prognostication; challenges in conveying poor prognoses to surrogate decision-makers; and the accuracy of surrogate decision-makers.

Why don't end-of-life conversations go viral? A review of videos on YouTube.

OBJECTIVE: To identify videos on YouTube concerning advance care planning (ACP) and synthesise existing video content and style elements. METHODS: Informed by stakeholder engagement, two researchers searched YouTube for ACP videos using predefined search terms and snowballing techniques. Videos identified were reviewed and deemed ineligible for analysis if they: targeted healthcare professionals; contained irrelevant content; focused on viewers under the age of 18; were longer than 7 min in duration; received fewer than 150 views; were in a language other than English; or were a duplicate version. For each video, two investigators independently extracted general information as well as video content and stylistic characteristics. RESULTS: The YouTube search identified 23 100 videos with 213 retrieved for assessment and 42 meeting eligibility criteria. The majority of videos had been posted to YouTube since 2010 and produced by organisations in the USA (71%). Viewership ranged from 171 to 10 642. Most videos used a documentary style and featured healthcare providers (60%) rather than patients (19%) or families (45%). A minority of videos (29%) used upbeat or hopeful music. The videos frequently focused on completing legal medical documents (86%). CONCLUSIONS: None of the ACP videos on YouTube went viral and a relatively small number of them contained elements endorsed by stakeholders. In emphasising the completion of legal medical documents, videos may have failed to support more meaningful ACP. Further research is needed to understand the features of videos that will engage patients and the wider community with ACP and palliative and end-of-life care conversations.

Effect of a multifaceted intervention on documentation of vital signs and staff communication regarding deteriorating paediatric patients.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of newly designed Paediatric Early Warning Scores and an accompanying education package, COMPASS, on the frequency of documentation of vital signs and communication between health professionals and associated medical review in deteriorating paediatric patients. METHODS: One thousand fifty-nine patients in the pre-intervention phase and 899 in the post-intervention phase were studied. The daily frequency of documentation of vital sign measurement, incidence of health professional communication and related medical reviews following clinical deterioration of a random subgroup of 262 pre-intervention and 221 post-intervention patients were studied in detail. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in hospital mortality, medical emergency team reviews or unplanned admissions to critical care areas between the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups. There were significant increases in the post-intervention group for the median daily frequency of documentation of respiratory effort (0.0 (0-0) to 7.8 (5.8-12.6), P < 0.001), capillary refill (0 (0-0) to 1.1 (0-3.1), P < 0.001), blood pressure (0 (0-1.1) to 0 (0-1.6), P = 0.007) and level of consciousness (0 (0-0) to 7.8 (5.8-12.0), P < 0.001) and appropriate communication concerning patient deterioration 63 (8.5%) to 216 (40.9%), P < 0.001). There was a significant reduction in the number of children fulfilling the medical emergency team criteria (102 (38.9%) to 45 (20.4), P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted intervention for the early recognition and response to clinical deterioration in children significantly improved documentation of vital signs, communication and time to medical review.

What are the barriers to mobilizing intensive care patients?

PURPOSE: Recently there has been increased interest in early mobilization of critically ill patients. Proposed benefits include improvements in respiratory function, muscle wasting, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital length of stay. We studied the frequency of early mobilization in our intensive care unit in order to identify barriers to early mobilization. METHODS: A 4-week prospective audit of 106 patients admitted to a mixed medical-surgical tertiary ICU (mean age 60 ± 20 years, mean APACHE II score 14.7 ± 7.8) was performed. Outcome measures included number of patient days mobilized, type of mobilization, adverse events, and reasons for inability to mobilize. RESULTS: Patients were mobilized on 176 (54%) of 327 patient days. Adverse events occurred in 2 of 176 mobilization episodes (1.1%). In 71 (47%) of the 151 patient days where mobilization did not occur, potentially avoidable factors were identified, including vascular access devices sited in the femoral region, timing of procedures and agitation or reduced level of consciousness. CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill patients can be safely mobilized for much of their ICU stay. Interventions that may allow more patients to mobilize include: changing the site of vascular catheters, careful scheduling of procedures, and improved sedation management.

A robust clinical review process: the catalyst for clinical governance in an Australian tertiary hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a robust clinical review process can influence an organisation's response to adverse patient outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis of the activity and outputs of the Clinical Review Committee (CRC) of a university-affiliated tertiary hospital from 1 September 2002 to 30 June 2006. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Engagement of clinicians (number on CRC, number interviewed for the clinical review process, number of specific referrals from clinicians); and numbers of cases reviewed, system issues identified, recommendations made to the hospital board, and ensuing actions. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary CRC with 34 members established a robust clinical review process and identified 5925 cases for initial case review. Of these, 2776 (46.8%) fulfilled one or more of the specified criteria for adverse events and progressed to detailed review; 342 of these (12.3%) were classed as serious or major. A total of 317 staff (11%) were interviewed, and 881 system issues were identified, resulting in 98 specific recommendations being made to the Clinical Board and implementation of 81 practice changes (including seven hospital-wide projects) to improve patient care. CONCLUSION: A robust, multidisciplinary clinical review process with strong links to managers and policymakers can influence an organisation's response to adverse patient outcomes and underpin a clinical governance framework.