Rabatin, Jeffrey T.

Context.— Autopsy rates have decreased dramatically despite providing important clinical information to medical practices and social benefits to decedents' families. Objective.— To assess the impact of an institutional Office of Decedent Affairs (ODA), a direct communication link between pathology and decedents' families, on hospital autopsy consent rates, autopsy-related communication, practitioner views, and next-of-kin experiences. Design.— A before and after study involving all hospital decedents whose deaths did not fall within the jurisdiction of the medical examiner's office from 2013 to 2018. A pathology-run ODA launched in May 2016 to guide next-of-kin through the hospital death process (including autopsy-related decisions) and serve as the next-of-kin's contact for any subsequent autopsy-related communication. Critical care and hematology/oncology practitioners were assessed for their autopsy-related views and decedents' next-of-kin were assessed for their autopsy-related experiences. Autopsy consent rates for non–medical examiner hospital deaths, autopsy-related communication rates, practitioner views on the role and value of autopsy, and next-of-kin autopsy experiences and decisions factors were compared prior to and after ODA launch. Results.— Autopsy consent rates significantly increased from 13.2% to 17.3% (480 of 3647 deaths versus 544 of 3148 deaths; P < .001). There were significant increases in the rate of autopsy-related discussions and bereavement counseling provided to decedents' families. Practitioner views on the positive role of autopsy for any hospital death and those with advanced stage cancer also significantly increased. Next-of-kin indicated more consistent autopsy-related discussions with the potential benefits of autopsy discussed becoming key decision factors. Conclusions.— An ODA improves hospital autopsy consent rates, autopsy-related communication, providers' autopsy-related views, and next-of-kins autopsy experiences.

Limited information is available regarding use of the Frazier free water protocol (FWP) with hospitalized patients who have dysphagia and have survived a critical illness with compromised pulmonary status. This pilot study used a two-group nonequivalent comparison group design to evaluate the FWP in 15 adults admitted to a respiratory care unit (RCU) with dysphagia concerns. Inclusion criteria included recommendation for a modified diet with thickened liquids by a dysphagia therapist and ability to follow the specific free water guidelines. The 15 control participants were chosen from a retrospective chart review of consecutive RCU admissions that met the same inclusion criteria. The intervention group for whom the free water guidelines were implemented did not differ significantly from the control group in rate of development of aspiration pneumonia, χ 2 (30) = .01, p = 1.00.

Context: The delivery of end-of-life care (EOLC) in the intensive care unit (ICU) varies widely among medical care providers. The differing opinions of nurses and physicians regarding EOLC may help identify areas of improvement. Objective: To explore the differences of physicians and nurses on EOLC in the ICU and how these differences vary according to self-reported proficiency level and primary work unit. Design: Cross-sectional survey of 69 ICU physicians and 629 ICU nurses. Setting: Single tertiary care academic medical institution. Results: A total of 50 physicians (72%) and 331 nurses (53%) participated in the survey. Significant differences between physicians and nurses were noted in the following areas: ability to safely raise concerns, do not resuscitate (DNR) decision making, discussion of health care directives, timely hospice referral, spiritual assessment documentation, utilization of social services, and the availability of EOLC education. In every domain of EOLC, physicians reported a more positive perception than nurses. Additional differences were noted among physicians based on experience, as well as among nurses based on their primary work unit and self-reported proficiency level. Conclusions: Even with an increased focus on improving EOLC, significant differences continue to exist between the perspectives of nurses and physicians, as well as physicians among themselves and nurses among themselves. These differences may represent significant barriers toward providing comprehensive, consistent, and coordinated EOLC in the ICU.