Dobler, Claudia C.

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.

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.

Purpose To pilot test the impact of the ICAN Discussion Aid on clinical encounters. Methods A pre–post study involving 11 clinicians and 100 patients was conducted at two primary care clinics within a single health system in the Midwest. The study examined clinicians’ perceptions about ICAN feasibility, patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions about encounter success, videographic differences in encounter topics, and medication adherence 6 months after an ICAN encounter. Results 39/40 control encounters and 45/60 ICAN encounters yielded usable data. Clinicians reported ICAN use was feasible. In ICAN encounters, patients discussed diet, being active and taking medications more. Clinicians scored themselves poorer regarding visit success than their patients scored them; this effect was more pronounced in ICAN encounters. ICAN did not improve 6-month medication adherence or lengthen visits. Conclusion This pilot study suggests that using ICAN in primary care is feasible, efficient and capable of modifying conversations. With lessons learned in this pilot, we are conducting a randomised trial of ICAN versus usual care in diverse clinical settings. Trial registration number NCT02390570 .

Introduction There is a considerable implementation gap in managing early stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care despite the high prevalence and risk for increased morbidity and mortality associated with CKD. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence of efficacy of implementation interventions aimed at primary care practitioners (PCPs) to improve CKD identification and management. We further aim to describe the interventions’ behavioural change components. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of studies from 2000 to October 2017 that evaluate implementation interventions targeting PCPs and which include at least one clinically meaningful CKD outcome. We will search several electronic data bases and conduct reference mining of related systematic reviews and publications. An interdisciplinary team will independently and in duplicate, screen publications, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Clinical outcomes will include all clinically meaningful medical management outcomes relevant to CKD management in primary care such as blood pressure, chronic heart disease and diabetes target achievements. Quantitative evidence synthesis will be performed, where possible. Planned subgroup analyses include by (1) study design, (2) length of follow-up, (3) type of intervention, (4) type of implementation strategy, (5) whether a behavioural or implementation theory was used to guide study, (6) baseline CKD severity, (7) patient minority status, (8) study location and (9) academic setting or not. Ethics and dissemination Approval by research ethics board is not required since the review will only include published and publicly accessible data. Review findings will inform a future trial of an intervention to promote uptake of CKD diagnosis and treatment guidelines in our primary care setting and the development of complementary tools to support its successful adoption and implementation. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop accessible summaries of the results. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018102441.

Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive lung disease, usually caused by tobacco smoking, but other important risk factors include exposures to combustion products of biomass fuels and environmental pollution. The introduction of several new (combination) inhaler therapies, increasing uncertainty about the role of inhaled corticosteroids and a rapid proliferation of the literature on management of stable COPD in general, call for novel ways of evidence synthesis in this area. A systematic review and evidence map can provide the basis for shared decision-making tools and help to establish a future research agenda. Methods and analysis This systematic review will follow an umbrella systematic review design (also called overview of reviews). We plan to conduct a comprehensive literature search of Ovid MEDLINE (including epub ahead of print, in process and other non-indexed citations), Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from database inception to the present. We will include systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention on one or more patient-important outcomes and/or lung function in patients with stable COPD. For every intervention/outcome pair, one systematic review will be included. An a priori protocol will guide, which systematic reviews will be chosen, how their credibility will be evaluated, and how the quality of the body of evidence will be rated. Data will be synthesised into an evidence map that will present a matrix that depicts each available treatment for stable COPD with a quantitative estimate on symptoms/outcomes from the patient perspective, along with an indication of the size and certainty in the evidence. Ethics and dissemination Approval by a research ethics committee is not required since the review will only include published data. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095079

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure and do-not-intubate or comfort-measures-only orders. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to January 1, 2017. Study Selection: Studies of all design types that enrolled patients in the ICU or hospital ward who received noninvasive ventilation and had preset do-not-intubate or comfort-measures-only orders. Data Extraction: Data abstraction followed Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Data quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data Synthesis: Twenty-seven studies evaluating 2,020 patients with do-not-intubate orders and three studies evaluating 200 patients with comfort-measures-only orders were included. In patients with do-not-intubate orders, the pooled survival was 56% (95% CI, 49–64%) at hospital discharge and 32% (95% CI, 21–45%) at 1 year. Hospital survival was 68% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 68% for pulmonary edema, 41% for pneumonia, and 37% for patients with malignancy. Survival was comparable for patients treated in a hospital ward versus an ICU. Quality of life of survivors was not reduced compared with baseline, although few studies evaluated this. No studies evaluated quality of dying in nonsurvivors. In patients with comfort-measures-only orders, a single study showed that noninvasive ventilation was associated with mild reductions in dyspnea and opioid requirements. Conclusions: A large proportion of patients with do-not-intubate orders who received noninvasive ventilation survived to hospital discharge and at 1 year, with limited data showing no decrease in quality of life in survivors. Provision of noninvasive ventilation in a well-equipped hospital ward may be a viable alternative to the ICU for selected patients. Crucial questions regarding quality of life in survivors, quality of death in nonsurvivors, and the impact of noninvasive ventilation in patients with comfort-measures-only orders remain largely unanswered.