The Role of Palliative Care Consultation in Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment among ICU Patients Receiving Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO): A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has extended the survivability of critically ill patients beyond their unsupported prognosis and has widened the timeframe for making an informed decision about the goal of care. However, an extended time window for survival does not necessarily translate into a better outcome and the sustaining treatment is ultimately withdrawn in many patients. Emerging evidence has implicated the determining role of palliative care consult (PCC) in direction of the care that critically ill patients receive. Objective: To evaluate the impact of PCC in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WOLST) among critically ill patients, who were placed on venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) at the intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary care hospital. Methods: In a retrospective observational study, electronic medical records of 750 patients admitted to the ICU of our hospital between January 1, 2015, and October 31, 2021, were reviewed. Data was collected for patients on VV-ECMO, for whom WOLST was withdrawn during the ICU stay. Clinical characteristics and the underlying reasons for WOLST were compared between those who received PCC (PCC group) and those who did not (non-PCC group). Results: A total of 95 patients were included in our analysis, 63 in the PCC group and 32 in the non-PCC group. The average age of the study population was 48.8 ± 12.6 years, and 64.2% were male. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographics or clinical characteristics at the time of ICU admission. The average duration of ICU stay and VV-ECMO were 14.1 ± 19.9 days and 9.4 ± 16.6 days, respectively. The number of PCC visits was correlated with the length of ICU stay. The average duration of ICU stay (40.3 ± 33.2 days vs 27.8 ± 19.3 days, P = .05) and ECMO treatment (31.9 ± 27 days vs 18.6 ± 16.1 days, P = .01) were significantly longer in patients receiving PCC than those not receiving PCC. However, the frequency of life sustaining measures or the underlying reasons for WOLST did not significantly differ between the two groups (P > .05). Conclusion: Among ICU patients requiring ECMO support, longer duration of ICU stay and treatment with a higher number of life-sustaining measures seemed to be correlated with the number of PCC visits. The underlying reasons for WOLST seem not to be affected by PCC.

Implementation of a Parent-centered Approach to the Preinduction Checklist in Pediatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The preinduction checklist, part of the three-phase surgical safety checklist, is performed before induction of anesthesia. Our previous research demonstrated higher checklist adherence by perioperative staff when parents were engaged in the preinduction checklist. We hypothesized that use of a parent-centered script (PCS) during the preinduction checklist would increase parent engagement and checklist adherence. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, observational study was conducted in which parents of children (<18 y) undergoing nonemergent surgeries (June 2018-July 2019) were observed before and after PCS implementation. The PCS, developed by the health care team, engaged parents by directly asking them to contribute information relevant to parent knowledge. Parent engagement was rated using a five-point Likert scale, and adherence was scored for each relevant checkpoint completed. RESULTS: Of 270 checklists, 154 (57%) occurred before and 116 (43%) after PCS implementation. Groups were similar by primary language, patient age, and type of surgery, but more postimplementation children had a prior surgery. The overall parent engagement score did not improve with the PCS (P = 0.8); however, there was an improvement in eye contact by parents. After introduction of the PCS, checklist adherence decreased from a median score of 6 (interquartile range 5-6) to 4 (interquartile range 4-5) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a PCS did not improve parent engagement during the preinduction checklist and an unexpected decline in checklist adherence was observed. Further research, with parent and staff input, is necessary to determine how best to engage parents while ensuring high checklist adherence.