Wilson, Michael E.

Background Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work. Design A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. Results A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. Limitations Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. Conclusions Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients’ values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.

Objectives: To understand how patients and family members experience dehumanizing or humanizing treatment when in the ICU. Design: Qualitative study included web-based focus groups and open-ended surveys posted to ICU patient/family social media boards. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Social media responses were collected and organized by stakeholder group. Data underwent qualitative analysis. Setting: Remote focus groups and online surveys. Patients: ICU patient survivors, family members, and ICU teams. Interventions: Not available. Measurements and Main Results: Semi-structured questions and open-ended survey responses. We enrolled 40 patients/family members and 31 ICU team members. Focus groups and surveys revealed three primary themes orienting humanizing/dehumanizing ICU experiences: 1) communication, 2) outcomes, and 3) causes of dehumanization. Dehumanization occurred during “communication” exchanges when ICU team members talked “over” patients, made distressing remarks when patients were present, or failed to inform patients about ICU-related care. “Outcomes” of dehumanization were associated with patient loss of trust in the medical team, loss of motivation to participate in ICU recovery, feeling of distress, guilt, depression, and anxiety. Humanizing behaviors were associated with improved recovery, well-being, and trust. “Perceived causes” of dehumanizing behaviors were linked to patient, ICU team, and healthcare system factors. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviors of ICU clinicians may cause patients and families to feel dehumanized when in the ICU. Negative behaviors are noticed by patients and families, possibly contributing to poor outcomes including mental health, recovery, and lack of trust in ICU teams. Supporting ICU clinicians may enable a more empathic environment and in turn more humanizing clinician-patient encounters.

Background: Little is known about the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) as a key element of social determinants of health on intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes for adults. Objective: We assessed whether a validated individual SES index termed HOUSES (HOUsing-based SocioEconomic status index) derived from housing features was associated with short-term outcomes of critical illness including ICU mortality, ICU-free days, hospital-free days, and ICU readmission. Methods: We performed a population-based cohort study of adult patients living in Olmsted County, Minnesota, admitted to 7 intensive care units at Mayo Clinic from 2011 to 2014. We compared outcomes between the lowest SES group (HOUSES quartile 1 [Q1]) and the higher SES group (HOUSES Q2-4). We stratified the cohort based on age (<50 years old and ≥50 years old). Results: Among 4134 eligible patients, 3378 (82%) patients had SES successfully measured by the HOUSES index. Baseline characteristics, severity of illness, and reason for ICU admission were similar among the different SES groups as measured by HOUSES except for larger number of intoxications and overdoses in younger patients from the lowest SES. In all adult patients, there were no overall differences in mortality, ICU-free days, hospital-free days, or ICU readmissions in patients with higher SES compared to lower SES. Among older patients (>50 years), those with higher SES (HOUSES Q2-4) compared to those with lower SES (HOUSES Q1) had lower mortality rates (hazard ratio = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56-0.93; adjusted P = .01), increased ICU-free days (mean 1.08 days; 95% CI: 0.34-1.84; adjusted P = .004), and increased hospital-free days (mean 1.20 days; 95% CI: 0.45-1.96; adjusted P = .002). There were no differences in ICU readmission rates (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55-1.00; P = .051). Conclusion: Individual-level SES may be an important determinant or predictor of critical care outcomes in older adults. Housing-based socioeconomic status may be a useful tool for enhancing critical care research and practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESHigh‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen may provide tailored benefits in patients with preset treatment limitations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC oxygen in patients with do‐not‐intubate (DNI) and/or do‐not‐resuscitate (DNR) orders.METHODSWe conducted a systematic review of interventional and observational studies. A search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception to October 15, 2018.RESULTSWe included six studies evaluating 293 patients. All studies had a high risk of bias. The hospital mortality rates of patients with DNI and/or DNR orders receiving HFNC oxygen were variable and ranged from 40% to 87%. In two before and after studies, the initiation of HFNC oxygen was associated with improved oxygenation and reduced respiratory rates. One comparative study found no difference in dyspnea reduction or morphine doses between patients using HFNC oxygen versus conventional oxygen. No studies evaluated quality of life in survivors or quality of death in nonsurvivors. HFNC was generally well tolerated with few adverse events identified.CONCLUSIONSWhile HFNC oxygen remains a viable treatment option for hospitalized patients who have acute respiratory failure and a DNI and/or DNR order, there is a paucity of high‐quality, comparative, effectiveness data to guide the usage of HFNC oxygen compared with other treatments, such as noninvasive ventilation, conventional oxygen, and palliative opioids.