Search

Background: Social determinants of health (SDOH) have been linked to neurocritical care outcomes. We sought to examine the extent to which SDOH explain differences in decisions regarding life-sustaining therapy, a key outcome determinant. We specifically investigated the association of a patient's home geography, individual-level SDOH, and neighborhood-level SDOH with subsequent early limitation of life-sustaining therapy (eLLST) and early withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (eWLST), adjusting for admission severity., Methods: We developed unique methods within the Bridge to Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Care (Bridge2AI for Clinical Care) Collaborative Hospital Repository Uniting Standards for Equitable Artificial Intelligence (CHoRUS) program to extract individual-level SDOH from electronic health records and neighborhood-level SDOH from privacy-preserving geomapping. We piloted these methods to a 7 years retrospective cohort of consecutive neuroscience intensive care unit admissions (2016-2022) at two large academic medical centers within an eastern Massachusetts health care system, examining associations between home census tract and subsequent occurrence of eLLST and eWLST. We matched contextual neighborhood-level SDOH information to each census tract using public data sets, quantifying Social Vulnerability Index overall scores and subscores. We examined the association of individual-level SDOH and neighborhood-level SDOH with subsequent eLLST and eWLST through geographic, logistic, and machine learning models, adjusting for admission severity using admission Glasgow Coma Scale scores and disorders of consciousness grades., Results: Among 20,660 neuroscience intensive care unit admissions (18,780 unique patients), eLLST and eWLST varied geographically and were independently associated with individual-level SDOH and neighborhood-level SDOH across diagnoses. Individual-level SDOH factors (age, marital status, and race) were strongly associated with eLLST, predicting eLLST more strongly than admission severity. Individual-level SDOH were more strongly predictive of eLLST than neighborhood-level SDOH., Conclusions: Across diagnoses, eLLST varied by home geography and was predicted by individual-level SDOH and neighborhood-level SDOH more so than by admission severity. Structured shared decision-making tools may therefore represent tools for health equity. Additionally, these findings provide a major warning: prognostic and artificial intelligence models seeking to predict outcomes such as mortality or emergence from disorders of consciousness may be encoded with self-fulfilling biases of geography and demographics., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Ethical Approval/Informed Consent: The study adhered to ethical guidelines and was approved by the local institutional review board as exempt from informed consent., (© 2024. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society.)

Clinical conversations surrounding the continuation or limitation of life-sustaining therapies (LLST) are both challenging and tragically necessary for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) following severe brain injury. Divergent cultural, philosophical and religious perspectives contribute to vast heterogeneity in clinical approaches to LLST-as reflected in regional differences and inter-clinician variability. Here we provide an ethical analysis of factors that inform LLST decisions among patients with DoC. We begin by introducing the clinical and ethical challenge and clarifying the distinction between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining therapy. We then describe relevant factors that influence LLST decision-making including diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, perception of pain, defining a 'good' outcome, and the role of clinicians. In concluding sections, we explore global variation in LLST practices as they pertain to patients with DoC and examine the impact of cultural and religious perspectives on approaches to LLST. Understanding and respecting the cultural and religious perspectives of patients and surrogates is essential to protecting patient autonomy and advancing goal-concordant care during critical moments of medical decision-making involving patients with DoC., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The advent of neurotechnologies including advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography to detect states of awareness not detectable by traditional bedside neurobehavioral techniques (i.e., covert consciousness) promises to transform neuroscience research and clinical practice for patients with brain injury. As these interventions progress from research tools into actionable, guideline-endorsed clinical tests, ethical guidance for clinicians on how to responsibly communicate the sensitive results they yield is crucial yet remains underdeveloped. Drawing on insights from empirical and theoretical neuroethics research and our clinical experience with advanced neurotechnologies to detect consciousness in behaviorally unresponsive patients, we critically evaluate ethical promises and perils associated with disclosing the results of clinical covert consciousness assessments and describe a semistructured approach to responsible data sharing to mitigate potential risks., (© 2024. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society.)

Neuroprognostication following acute brain injury (ABI) is a complex process that involves integrating vast amounts of information to predict a patient's likely trajectory of neurologic recovery. In this setting, critically evaluating salient ethical questions is imperative, and the implications often inform high-stakes conversations about the continuation, limitation, or withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. While neuroprognostication is central to these clinical "life-or-death" decisions, the ethical underpinnings of neuroprognostication itself have been underexplored for patients with ABI. In this article, we discuss the ethical challenges of individualized neuroprognostication including parsing and communicating its inherent uncertainty to surrogate decision-makers. We also explore the population-based ethical considerations that arise in the context of heterogenous prognostication practices. Finally, we examine the emergence of artificial intelligence-aided neuroprognostication, proposing an ethical framework relevant to both modern and longstanding prognostic tools., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated the feasibility and discriminability of recently proposed Clinical Performance Measures for Neurocritical Care (Neurocritical Care Society) and Quality Indicators for Traumatic Brain Injury (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI; CENTER-TBI) extracted from electronic health record (EHR) flowsheet data., Methods: At three centers within the Collaborative Hospital Repository Uniting Standards (CHoRUS) for Equitable AI consortium, we examined consecutive neurocritical care admissions exceeding 24 h (03/2015-02/2020) and evaluated the feasibility, discriminability, and site-specific variation of five clinical performance measures and quality indicators: (1) intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (ICPM) within 24 h when indicated, (2) ICPM latency when initiated within 24 h, (3) frequency of nurse-documented neurologic assessments, (4) intermittent pneumatic compression device (IPCd) initiation within 24 h, and (5) latency to IPCd application. We additionally explored associations between delayed IPCd initiation and codes for venous thromboembolism documented using the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) system. Median (interquartile range) statistics are reported. Kruskal-Wallis tests were measured for differences across centers, and Dunn statistics were reported for between-center differences., Results: A total of 14,985 admissions met inclusion criteria. ICPM was documented in 1514 (10.1%), neurologic assessments in 14,635 (91.1%), and IPCd application in 14,175 (88.5%). ICPM began within 24 h for 1267 (83.7%), with site-specific latency differences among sites 1-3, respectively, (0.54 h [2.82], 0.58 h [1.68], and 2.36 h [4.60]; p < 0.001). The frequency of nurse-documented neurologic assessments also varied by site (17.4 per day [5.97], 8.4 per day [3.12], and 15.3 per day [8.34]; p < 0.001) and diurnally (6.90 per day during daytime hours vs. 5.67 per day at night, p < 0.001). IPCds were applied within 24 h for 12,863 (90.7%) patients meeting clinical eligibility (excluding those with EHR documentation of limiting injuries, actively documented as ambulating, or refusing prophylaxis). In-hospital venous thromboembolism varied by site (1.23%, 1.55%, and 5.18%; p < 0.001) and was associated with increased IPCd latency (overall, 1.02 h [10.4] vs. 0.97 h [5.98], p = 0.479; site 1, 2.25 h [10.27] vs. 1.82 h [7.39], p = 0.713; site 2, 1.38 h [5.90] vs. 0.80 h [0.53], p = 0.216; site 3, 0.40 h [16.3] vs. 0.35 h [11.5], p = 0.036)., Conclusions: Electronic health record-derived reporting of neurocritical care performance measures is feasible and demonstrates site-specific variation. Future efforts should examine whether performance or documentation drives these measures, what outcomes are associated with performance, and whether EHR-derived measures of performance measures and quality indicators are modifiable., (© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society.)