Physicians' Views and Agreement about Patient- and Context-Related Factors Influencing ICU Admission Decisions: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Single patient- and context-related factors have been associated with admission decisions to intensive care. How physicians weigh various factors and integrate them into the decision-making process is not well known. OBJECTIVES: First, to determine which patient- and context-related factors influence admission decisions according to physicians, and their agreement about these determinants; and second, to examine whether there are differences for patients with and without advanced disease. METHOD: This study was conducted in one tertiary hospital. Consecutive ICU consultations for medical inpatients were prospectively included. Involved physicians, i.e., internists and intensivists, rated the importance of 13 factors for each decision on a Likert scale (1 = negligible to 5 = predominant). We cross-tabulated these factors by presence or absence of advanced disease and examined the degree of agreement between internists and intensivists using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Of 201 evaluated patients, 105 (52.2%) had an advanced disease, and 140 (69.7%) were admitted to intensive care. The mean number of important factors per decision was 3.5 (SD 2.4) for intensivists and 4.4 (SD 2.1) for internists. Patient's comorbidities, quality of life, preferences, and code status were most often mentioned. Inter-rater agreement was low for the whole population and after stratifying for patients with and without advanced disease. Kappa values ranged from 0.02 to 0.34 for all the patients, from -0.05 to 0.42 for patients with advanced disease, and from -0.08 to 0.32 for patients without advanced disease. The best agreement was found for family preferences. CONCLUSION: Poor agreement between physicians about patient- and context-related determinants of ICU admission suggests a lack of explicitness during the decision-making process. The potential consequences are increased variability and inequity regarding which patients are admitted. Timely advance care planning involving families could help physicians make the decision most concordant with patient preferences.

Physicians' predictions of long-term survival and functional outcomes do not influence the decision to admit patients with advanced disease to intensive care: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term survival and functional outcomes should influence admission decisions to intensive care, especially for patients with advanced disease. AIM: To determine whether physicians' predictions of long-term prognosis influenced admission decisions for patients with and without advanced disease. DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted. Physicians estimated patient survival with intensive care and with care on the ward, and the probability of 4 long-term outcomes: leaving hospital alive, survival at 6 months, recovery of functional status, and recovery of cognitive status. Patient mortality at 28 days was recorded. We built multivariate logistic regression models using admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) as the dependent variable. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: ICU consultations for medical inpatients at a Swiss tertiary care hospital were included. RESULTS: Of 201 evaluated patients, 105 (52.2%) had an advanced disease and 140 (69.7%) were admitted to the ICU. The probability of admission was strongly associated with the expected short-term survival benefit for patients with or without advanced disease. In contrast, the predicted likelihood that the patient would leave the hospital alive, would be alive 6 months later, would recover functional status, and would recover initial cognitive capacity was not associated with the decision to admit a patient to the ICU. Even for patients with advanced disease, none of these estimated outcomes influenced the admission decision. CONCLUSIONS: ICU admissions of patients with advanced disease were determined by short-term survival benefit, and not by long-term prognosis. Advance care planning and developing decision-aid tools for triage could help limit potentially inappropriate admissions to intensive care.

ICU physicians' and internists' survival predictions for patients evaluated for admission to the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: A higher chance of survival is a key justification for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). This implies that physicians should be able to accurately estimate a patient's prognosis, whether cared for on the ward or in the ICU. We aimed to determine whether physicians' survival predictions correlate with the admission decisions and with patients' observed survival. Consecutive ICU consultations for internal medicine patients were included. The ICU physician and the internist were asked to predict patient survival with intensive care and with care on the ward using 5 categories of probabilities (< 10%, 10-40%, 41-60%, 61-90%, > 90%). Patient mortality at 28 days was recorded. RESULTS: Thirty ICU physicians and 97 internists assessed 201 patients for intensive care. Among the patients, 140 (69.7%) were admitted to the ICU. Fifty-eight (28.9%) died within 28 days. Admission to intensive care was associated with predicted survival gain in the ICU, particularly for survival estimates made by ICU physicians. Observed survival was associated with predicted survival, for both groups of physicians. The discrimination of the predictions for survival with intensive care, measured by the area under the ROC curve, was 0.63 for ICU physicians and 0.76 for internists; for survival on the ward the areas under the ROC curves were 0.69 and 0.74, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are able to predict survival probabilities when they assess patients for intensive care, albeit imperfectly. Internists are more accurate than ICU physicians. However, ICU physicians' estimates more strongly influence the admission decision. Closer collaboration between ICU physicians and internists is needed.

Are role perceptions of residents and nurses translated into action?

BACKGROUND: Effective interprofessional collaboration (IPC) has been shown to depend on clear role definitions, yet there are important gaps with regard to role clarity in the IPC literature. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was a relationship between internal medicine residents' and nurses' role perceptions and their actual actions in practice, and to identify areas that would benefit from more specific interprofessional education. METHODS: Fourteen residents and 14 nurses working in internal medicine were interviewed about their role perceptions, and then randomly paired to manage two simulated clinical cases. The authors adopted a general inductive approach to analyze the interviews. They identified 13 different role components that were then compared to data from simulations. Descriptive and kappa statistics were used to assess whether there was a relationship between role components identified in interviews and those performed in simulations. Results from these analyses guided a further qualitative evaluation of the relationship between role perceptions and actions. RESULTS: Across all 13 role components, there was an overall statistically significant, although modest, relationship between role perceptions and actions. In spite of this relationship, discrepancies were observed between role components mentioned in interviews and actions performed in simulations. Some were more frequently performed than mentioned (e.g. "Having common goals") while others were mentioned but performed only weakly (e.g. "Providing feedback"). CONCLUSIONS: Role components for which perceptions do not match actions point to role ambiguities that need to be addressed in interprofessional education. These results suggest that educators need to raise residents' and nurses' awareness of the flexibility required to work in the clinical setting with regard to role boundaries.