Wilson, Michael E.

Objectives: To examine perceptions of nurses and physicians in regard to ethical decision-making climate in the ICU and to test the hypothesis that the worse the ethical decision-making climate, the greater the discordance between nurses’ and physicians’ rating of ethical decision-making climate with physicians hypothesized to rate the climate better than the nurses. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: A total of 68 adult ICUs in 13 European countries and the United States. Subjects: ICU physicians and nurses. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Perceptions of ethical decision-making climate among clinicians were measured in April-May 2014, using a 35-items self-assessment questionnaire that evaluated seven factors (empowering leadership by physicians, interdisciplinary reflection, not avoiding end-of-life decisions, mutual respect within the interdisciplinary team, involvement of nurses in end-of-life care and decision-making, active decision-making by physicians, and ethical awareness). A total of 2,275 nurses and 717 physicians participated (response rate of 63%). Using cluster analysis, ICUs were categorized according to four ethical decision-making climates: good, average with nurses’ involvement at end-of-life, average without nurses’ involvement at end-of-life, and poor. Overall, physicians rated ethical decision-making climate more positively than nurses (p < 0.001 for all seven factors). Physicians had more positive perceptions of ethical decision-making climate than nurses in all 13 participating countries and in each individual participating ICU. Compared to ICUs with good or average ethical decision-making climates, ICUs with poor ethical decision-making climates had the greatest discordance between physicians and nurses. Although nurse/physician differences were found in all seven factors of ethical decision-making climate measurement, the factors with greatest discordance were regarding physician leadership, interdisciplinary reflection, and not avoiding end-of-life decisions. Conclusions: Physicians consistently perceived ICU ethical decision-making climate more positively than nurses. ICUs with poor ethical decision-making climates had the largest discrepancies.

Objectives: Research indicates that the increasing population of over 25 million people in the United States who have limited English proficiency experience differences in decision-making and subsequent care at end of life in the ICU when compared with the general population. The objective of this study was to assess the perceptions of healthcare team members about the factors that influence discussions and decision-making about end of life for patients and family members with limited English proficiency in the ICU. Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews with ICU physicians, nurses, and interpreters. Setting: Three ICUs at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Subjects: Sixteen ICU physicians, 12 ICU nurses, and 12 interpreters. Intervention: None. Measurements and Main Results: We conducted 40 semistructured interviews. We identified six key differences in end-of-life decision-making for patients with limited English proficiency compared with patients without limited English proficiency: 1) clinician communication is modified and less frequent; 2) clinician ability to assess patient and family understanding is impaired; 3) relationship building is impaired; 4) patient and family understanding of decision-making concepts (e.g., palliative care) is impaired; 5) treatment limitations are often perceived to be unacceptable due to faith-based and cultural beliefs; and 6) patient and family decision-making styles are different. Facilitators of high-quality decision-making in patients with limited English proficiency included: 1) premeeting between clinician and interpreter; 2) interpretation that communicates empathy and caring; 3) bidirectional communication of cultural perspectives; 4) interpretation that improves messaging including appropriate word choice; and 5) clinician cultural humility. Conclusions: End-of-life decision-making is significantly different for ICU patients with limited English proficiency. Participants identified several barriers and facilitators to high-quality end-of-life decision-making for ICU patients and families with limited English proficiency. Awareness of these factors can facilitate interventions to improve high-quality, compassionate, and culturally sensitive decision-making for patients and families with limited English proficiency.

Background and objectives Dialysis is a preference-sensitive decision where prognosis may play an important role. Although patients desire risk prediction, nephrologists are wary of sharing this information. We reviewed the performance of prognostic indices for patients starting dialysis to facilitate bedside translation. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus for eligible studies of patients starting dialysis published from inception to December 31, 2018. Selection Criteria: Articles describing validated prognostic indices predicting mortality at the start of dialysis. We excluded studies limited to prevalent dialysis patients, AKI and studies excluding mortality in the first 1–3 months. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, performed full text assessment of inclusion criteria and extracted: study design, setting, population demographics, index performance and risk of bias. Pre-planned random effects meta-analysis was performed stratified by index and predictive window to reduce heterogeneity. Results Of 12,132 articles screened and 214 reviewed in full text, 36 studies were included describing 32 prognostic indices. Predictive windows ranged from 3 months to 10 years, cohort sizes from 46 to 52,796. Meta-analysis showed discrimination area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 073) with high heterogeneity ( I 2 =99.12). Meta-analysis by index showed highest AUC for The Obi, Ivory, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)=0.74, also CCI was the most commonly used (ten studies). Other commonly used indices were Kahn-Wright index (eight studies, AUC 0.68), Hemmelgarn modification of the CCI (six studies, AUC 0.66) and REIN index (five studies, AUC 0.69). Of the indices, ten have been validated externally, 16 internally and nine were pre-existing validated indices. Limitations include heterogeneity and exclusion of large cohort studies in prevalent patients. Conclusions Several well validated indices with good discrimination are available for predicting survival at dialysis start.

Background: Socioeconomic status (SES) is an important determinant of disparities in health care and may play a role in end-of-life care and decision-making. The SES is difficult to retrospectively abstract from current electronic medical records and data sets. Objective: Using a validated SES measuring tool derived from home address, the HOUsing-based SocioEconomic Status index, termed HOUSES we wanted to determine whether SES is associated with differences in end-of-life care and decision-making. Design/Setting/Participants: This cross-sectional study utilized a cohort of Olmsted County adult residents admitted to 7 intensive care units (ICUs) at Mayo Rochester between June 1, 2011, and May 31, 2014. Measurements: Multiple variables that reflect decision-making and care at end of life and during critical illness were evaluated, including presence of advance directives and discharge disposition. The SES was measured by individual housing-based SES index (HOUSES index; a composite index derived from real property as a standardized z-score) at the date of admission to the ICU which was then divided into 4 quartiles. The greater HOUSES, the higher SES, outcomes were adjusted for age, 24-hour Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score, sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance. Results: Among the eligible 4134 participants, the addresses of 3393 (82%) were successfully geocoded and formulated into HOUSES. The adjusted odds ratios comparing HOUSES 1 versus 2, 3, and 4 demonstrated lower likelihood of advance directives −0.77(95% CI: 0.63-0.93) and lower likelihood of discharge to home −0.60(95% CI: 1.0.5-0.72). Conclusion: Lower SES, derived from a composite index of housing attributes, was associated with lower rates of advance directives and lower likelihood of discharge to home.

Purpose of review In this review, we will discuss efforts and challenges in understanding and developing meaningful outcomes of critical care research, quality improvement and policy, which are patient-centered and goal concordant, rather than mortality alone. We shall discuss different aspects of what could constitute outcomes of critical illness as meaningful to the patients and other stakeholders, including families and providers. Recent findings Different outcome pathways after critical illness impact the patients, families and providers in multiple ways. For patients who die, it is important to consider the experience of dying. For the increasing number of survivors of critical illness, challenges of survival have surfaced. The physical, mental and social debility that survivors experience has evolved into the entity called post-ICU syndrome. The importance of prehospital health state trajectory and the need for the outcome of critical care to be aligned with the patients’ goals and preferences have been increasingly recognized. Summary A theoretical framework is outlined to help understand the impact of critical care interventions on outcomes that are meaningful to patients, families and healthcare providers.

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.

Objective: Predictors of long-term functional impairment in acute respiratory failure of all causes are poorly understood. Our objective was to assess the frequency and predictors of long-term functional impairment or death after invasive mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure of all causes. Design: Population-based, observational cohort study. Setting: Eight adult ICUs of a single center. Patients: All adult patients from Olmsted County, Minnesota, without baseline functional impairment who received mechanical ventilation in ICUs for acute respiratory failure of all causes from 2005 through 2009. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: In total, 743 patients without baseline functional impairment received mechanical ventilation in the ICU. At 1- and 5-year follow-up, the rates of survival with return to baseline functional ability were 61% (366/597) and 53% (356/669). Among 71 patients with new functional impairment at 1 year, 55% (39/71) had recovered and were alive without functional impairment at 5 years. Factors predictive of new functional impairment or death at 1 year were age, comorbidities, discharge to other than home, mechanical ventilation of 7 days or longer, and stroke. Of factors known at the time of intubation, the following are predictive of new functional impairment or death: age, comorbidities, nonsurgical condition, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score, stroke, and sepsis. Post hoc sensitivity analyses revealed no significant change in predictor variables in patient populations when stroke was excluded or who received more than 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Conclusions: At 1- and 5-year follow-up, many patients who received mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure from all causes are no longer alive or have new moderate-to-severe functional impairment. Functional recovery between year 1 and year 5 is possible and common. Sepsis, stroke, illness severity, age, and comorbidities predict long-term functional outcome at intubation.

A 23-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with severe occipital headache, nausea and fever. She was treated with intravenous antibiotics for suspected meningitis. After a brief period of response, her symptoms relapsed and remained refractory despite continuing intravenous antibiotics for 10 days leading to referral to our centre. Physical examination was significant for tender right cervical lymph node. Initial tests included pancytopenia, elevated C reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase and unremarkable cerebrospinal fluid. Extensive infectious and rheumatology work-up was negative. Massive posterior cervical, axillary and inguinal lymphadenopathy was revealed on imaging. Excisional biopsy of the deep cervical lymph node showed histiocytic necrotising lymphadenitis suggesting a diagnosis of Kikuchi disease. Her course was complicated by acute renal failure. Her symptoms resolved in about a week with supportive treatment along with improvement in pancytopenia and renal function. She had two additional self-limited recurrences in the next 3 months and remains symptom free thereafter.

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.