Search

BACKGROUND: Each year, approximately one million older adults die in American ICUs or survive with significant functional impairment. Inadequate symptom management, surrogates’ psychological distress and inappropriate healthcare use are major concerns. Pioneering work by Dr. J. Randall Curtis paved the way for integrating palliative care (PC) specialists to address these needs, but convincing proof of efficacy has not yet been demonstrated. DESIGN: We will conduct a multicenter patient-randomized efficacy trial of integrated specialty PC (SPC) versus usual care for 500 high-risk ICU patients over age 60 and their surrogate decision-makers from five hospitals in Pennsylvania. INTERVENTION: The intervention will follow recommended best practices for inpatient PC consultation. Patients will receive care from a multidisciplinary SPC team within 24 hours of enrollment that continues until hospital discharge or death. SPC clinicians will meet with patients, families, and the ICU team every weekday. SPC and ICU clinicians will jointly participate in proactive family meetings according to a predefined schedule. Patients in the control arm will receive routine ICU care. OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome is patient-centeredness of care, measured using the modified Patient Perceived Patient-Centeredness of Care (PPPC) scale. Secondary outcomes include surrogates’ psychological symptom burden and health resource utilization. Other outcomes include patient survival, as well as interprofessional collaboration. We will also conduct prespecified subgroup analyses using variables such as PC needs, measured by the Needs of Social Nature, Existential Concerns, Symptoms, and Therapeutic Interaction (NEST) scale. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide robust evidence about the impact of integrating SPC with critical care on patient, family, and health system outcomes.

Context Although many patients with critical illness may benefit from involvement of palliative care specialists, adoption of these services in the intensive care unit (ICU) is variable. Objective To characterize reasons for variable buy-in for specialty palliative care in the ICU, and identify factors associated with routine involvement of specialists in appropriate cases. Methods Qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with ICU attendings, nurses, and palliative care clinicians, purposively sampled from eight ICUs (medical, surgical, cardiothoracic, neurological) with variable use of palliative care services within two urban, academic medical centers. Interviews were transcribed and coded using an iterative and inductive approach with constant comparison. Results We identified three types of specialty palliative care adoption in ICUs, representing different phases of buy-in. The “nascent” phase was characterized by the need for education about palliative care services and clarification of which patients may be appropriate for involvement. During the key “transitional” phase, use of specialists depended on development of “comfort and trust”, which centered on four aspects of the ICU-palliative care clinician relationship: 1) increasing familiarity between clinicians; 2) navigating shared responsibility with primary clinicians; 3) having a collaborative approach to care; and 4) having successful experiences. In the “mature” phase, ICU and palliative care clinicians worked to strengthen their existing collaboration, but further adoption was limited by the availability and resources of the palliative care team. Conclusion This conceptual framework identifying distinct phases of adoption may assist institutions aiming to foster sustained adoption of specialty palliative care in an ICU setting.

ObjectivesFamily caregiver burden among older adults with advanced cancer remains poorly understood. We sought to (1) identify patient factors associated with caregiver burden and (2) examine how amount of time caregiving modifies these relationships.MethodsCross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a cluster-randomized palliative care intervention trial including patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers, recruited from 17 oncology practices in Pennsylvania. Caregiver burden was measured using Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12; range 0-48). Patient factors included functional status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group), symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Palliative Care). Using adjusted multivariable regression, we analyzed (1) independent associations between patient factors and caregiver burden and (2) how weekly caregiving hours modified these relationships.ResultsAmong 441 patient-caregiver dyads, mean patient age was 70±10 and caregiver age was 62±13years. Most caregivers (59%) were patients' partners. Caregivers reported 44.5±53.5 average hours spent caregiving weekly; mean ZBI-12 scores were 10.3±7.3. Worse patient functional status (β=4.20, p&nbsp

PURPOSE: To understand clinicians’ views regarding use of clinical criteria, or triggers, for specialist palliative care consultation in the ICU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of a qualitative study that explored factors associated with adoption of specialist palliative care in the ICU. Semi-structured interviews with 36 ICU and palliative care clinicians included questions related to triggers for specialist palliative care. We performed a thematic analysis to identify participants’ views on use of triggers, including appropriateness of cases for specialists and issues surrounding trigger implementation. RESULTS: We identified five major themes: 1) Appropriate triggers for specialist palliative care, 2) Issues leading to clinician ambivalence for triggers, 3) Prospective buy-in of stakeholders, 4) Workflow considerations in deploying a trigger system, and 5) Role of ICU clinicians in approving specialist palliative care consults. Appropriate triggers included end-of-life care, chronic critical illness, frequent ICU admissions, and patient/family support. Most clinicians had concerns about “trigger overload” and ICU clinicians wanted to be broadly involved in implementation efforts. CONCLUSIONS: ICU and palliative care clinicians identified important issues to consider when implementing triggers for specialist palliative care consultation. Future research is needed to longitudinally examine the most appropriate triggers and best practices for trigger implementation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) in surrogate decision makers. METHODS: With a sample of 472 surrogates from intensive care units in five academic medical centers across the United States, we performed the analysis in five phases to 1) model the congeneric structure with confirmatory factor analysis and assess 2) internal consistency reliability, 3) the unidimensional or global assessment, 4) factorial invariance across surrogate gender, and 5) individual item influence on the domains. RESULTS: The congeneric model fit the data, with all factor loadings (0.577–0.955) statistically significant at p

The addition of specialty palliative care to standard oncology care improves outcomes for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, but many lack access to specialty care services. Primary palliative care-meaning basic palliative care services provided by clinicians who are not palliative care specialists-is an alternative approach that has not been rigorously evaluated.A cluster randomized, controlled trial of the CONNECT (Care management by Oncology Nurses to address supportive care needs) intervention, an oncology nurse-led care management approach to providing primary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers, is currently underway at 16 oncology practices in Western Pennsylvania. Existing oncology nurses are trained to provide symptom management and emotional support, engage patients and families in advance care planning, and coordinate appropriate care using evidence-based care management strategies. The trial will assess the impact of CONNECT versus standard oncology care on patient quality of life (primary outcome), symptom burden, and mood; caregiver burden and mood; and healthcare resource use.This trial addresses the need for more accessible models of palliative care by evaluating an intervention led by oncology nurses that can be widely disseminated in community oncology settings. The design confronts potential biases in palliative care research by randomizing at the practice level to avoid contamination, enrolling patients prior to informing them of group allocation, and conducting blinded outcome assessments. By collecting patient, caregiver, and healthcare utilization outcomes, the trial will enable understanding of the full range of a primary palliative care intervention's impact.

Context Patients with advanced cancer often worry about dying. Less is known about the role of worry in decision making regarding future care. Objectives To explore relationships between patients' worry about dying and their illness understanding, treatment preferences, and advance care planning (ACP). Methods This cross-sectional study used baseline data from a primary palliative care intervention trial. All participants had metastatic solid tumors. Using patients' response to I worry about dying from the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness—Palliative Care survey instrument, univariate and multivariate analyses assessed associations with illness understanding, treatment preferences, and ACP. Results Of 672 patients, 47% reported worrying about dying not at all, whereas 9.7% worried quite a bit or very much. In regression analysis, compared with patients who reported not worrying about dying, those who reported high levels of worry were more likely to describe themselves as terminally ill (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.98; 95% CI = 1.10–3.54; P = 0.021) and prefer life-extending therapy over symptom-focused care (AOR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.30–5.22; P = 0.007). They were less likely to have completed an advance directive (AOR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.25–0.94; P = 0.032). The same relationships were seen using patients' response to I feel scared about my future from the Herth Hope Index. Conclusion Patients with advanced cancer who worry about dying are more likely to identify as terminally ill and desire life-extending treatment and are less likely to engage in ACP. Understanding how patients cope with worry and make medical decisions is important in providing quality care to these patients.

Purpose Although barriers to shared decision making in intensive care units are well documented, there are currently no easily scaled interventions to overcome these problems. We sought to assess stakeholders' perceptions of the acceptability, usefulness, and design suggestions for a tablet-based tool to support communication and shared decision making in ICUs. Methods We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 58 key stakeholders (30 surrogates and 28 ICU care providers). Interviews explored stakeholders' perceptions about the acceptability of a tablet-based tool to support communication and shared decision making, including the usefulness of modules focused on orienting families to the ICU, educating them about the surrogate's role, completing a question prompt list, eliciting patient values, educating about treatment options, eliciting perceptions about prognosis, and providing psychosocial support resources. The interviewer also elicited stakeholders' design suggestions for such a tool. We used constant comparative methods to identify key themes that arose during the interviews. Results Overall, 95% (55/58) of participants perceived the proposed tool to be acceptable, with 98% (57/58) of interviewees finding six or more of the seven content domains acceptable. Stakeholders identified several potential benefits of the tool including that it would help families prepare for the surrogate role and for family meetings as well as give surrogates time and a framework to think about the patient's values and treatment options. Key design suggestions included: conceptualize the tool as a supplement to rather than a substitute for surrogate-clinician communication; make the tool flexible with respect to how, where, and when surrogates can access the tool; incorporate interactive exercises; use video and narration to minimize the cognitive load of the intervention; and build an extremely simple user interface to maximize usefulness for individuals with low computer literacy. Conclusion There is broad support among stakeholders for the use of a tablet-based tool to improve communication and shared decision making in ICUs. Eliciting the perspectives of key stakeholders early in the design process yielded important insights to create a tool tailored to the needs of surrogates and care providers in ICUs.

Efforts to answer the question of whether or when physicians may unilaterally refuse to provide treatments they deem medically futile, but that are nonetheless demanded by patients or their surrogates, have been characterized as intractable failures. We propose a new look at this old problem and suggest reframing the debate in terms of the implicit social contract, in healthy democracies, between the medical profession and the society it serves. This ever-evolving contract is predicated upon providing patients with beneficial and desired medical care within the constraints of scarce resources and the characteristics of our health-care system. The contract ranges over a continuum of decisions, from those that do not need an explicit negotiated agreement with the patient or surrogate, to those that do. Between these two poles lies a contentious gray area, where the rights and obligations of patients and physicians are being shaped continuously by the many forces that are at play in a democratic society, including professional guidelines, social advocacy, legislation, and litigation. We provide examples of how this gray area has been and is negotiated around rights to refuse and demand a variety of life-sustaining treatments, and anticipate conflicts likely to arise in the future. Reframing the futility debate in this way reveals that the issue is not a story of intractable failure, but rather, a successful narrative about how democracies balance the legitimate perspectives of patients and physicians against a backdrop of societal constraints and values.

The burden of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms may be associated with worse outcomes after transplantation. Little is known about the prevalence and correlates of PTSD symptoms in lung transplant recipients.We conducted a cross-sectional study of lung transplant recipients between April 2008 and February 2010 at a single center. The PTSD Checklist was used to determine the burden of PTSD symptomatology (total score) and percent of subjects with a provisional PTSD diagnosis (validated algorithms). We assessed the relationship between PTSD symptom burden and patient characteristics with multivariable logistic modeling.We enrolled 210 subjects (response rate 91%). Most patients were female (50%), and Caucasian (89%). The median age was 59 (interquartile range [IQR] 48 to 63) years and the median time between transplant and follow-up was 2.4 (IQR 0.7 to 5.3) years. Clinically significant PTSD symptomatology was observed in 12.6% (8.4% to 17.9%) of subjects. Subjects were more likely to endorse symptoms of re-experiencing (29.5%) and arousal (33.8%) than avoidant symptoms (18.4%). Multivariable linear regression showed higher PTSD symptom scores among recipients who were: younger (p0.001); without private insurance (p = 0.001); exposed to trauma (p0.001); or diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (p = 0.005).Overall prevalence of PTSD (12.6%) in our study was two times higher than the general population. Patient characteristics found to be associated with an increased burden of PTSD symptoms may be useful to consider in future interventions designed to reduce this comorbidity.

Every country has finite resources that are expended to provide citizens with social "goods," including education, protection, infrastructure, and health care. Rationing-of any resource-refers to distribution of an allotted amount and may involve withholding some goods that would benefit some citizens. Health-care rationing is controversial because good health complements so many human endeavors. We explored (perceptions regarding) critical care rationing in seven industrialized countries. Academic physicians from England, Spain, Italy, France, Argentina, Canada, and the United States wrote essays that addressed specific questions including: (1) What historical, cultural, and medical institutional features inform my country's approach to rationing of health care? (2) What is known about formal rationing, especially in critical care, in my country? (3) How does rationing occur in my ICU? Responses suggest that critical care is rationed, by varying mechanisms, in all seven countries. We speculate that while no single "best" method of rationing is likely to be acceptable or optimal for all countries, professional societies could serve international health by developing evidence-based guidelines for just and effective rationing of critical care.

Because they provide potential benefit at great personal and public cost, the intensive care unit (ICU) and the interventions rendered therein have become symbols of both the promise and the limitations of medical technology. At the same time, the ICU has served as an arena in which many of the ethical and legal dilemmas created by that technology have been defined and debated. This article outlines major events in the history of ethics and law in the ICU, covering the evolution of ICUs, ethical principles, informed consent and the law, medical decision-making, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, legal cases involving life support, advance directives, prognostication, and futility and the allocation of medical resources. Advancement of the ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy in ICUs increasingly is in conflict with physicians' concern about their own prerogatives and with the just distribution of medical resources.

Because most critically ill patients lack decision-making capacity, physicians often ask family members to act as surrogates for the patient in discussions about the goals of care. Therefore, clinician-family communication is a central component of medical decision making in the ICU, and the quality of this communication has direct bearing on decisions made regarding care for critically ill patients. In addition, studies suggest that clinician-family communication can also have profound effects on the experiences and long-term mental health of family members. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a context and rationale for improving the quality of communication with family members and to provide practical, evidence-based guidance on how to conduct this communication in the ICU setting. We emphasize the importance of discussing prognosis effectively, the key role of the integrated interdisciplinary team in this communication, and the importance of assessing spiritual needs and addressing barriers that can be raised by cross-cultural communication. We also discuss the potential value of protocols to encourage communication and the potential role of quality improvement for enhancing communication with family members. Last, we review issues regarding physician reimbursement for communication with family members within the context of the US health-care system. Communication with family members in the ICU setting is complex, and high-quality communication requires training and collaboration of a well-functioning interdisciplinary team. This communication also requires a balance between adhering to processes of care that are associated with improved outcomes and individualizing communication to the unique needs of the family.

The concept that critical illness and terminal illness are necessarily distinct entities has given way to the understanding that they often exist on the same spectrum. Consequently, there is growing consensus that palliative treatment must coexist with attempts at restorative treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU). Palliative care in the ICU has evolved from a relatively one-dimensional construct of terminal sedation in dying patients to a multidisciplinary field addressing symptom control, physician-patient-family communication,spiritual needs, and the needs of health care providers. As ongoing research efforts yield new insights, our ability to practice evidence-based palliative care in the ICU will grow, and new avenues for improvement will become evident.

What Your Lung Transplant Candidates with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Want and Expect from Transplant C.J. Gries ,1 M. Budev,2 L.D. Snyder,3 J.M. Pilewski,1 M. Dew,4 A. DeVito-Dabbs,5 C. Bermudez,6 S.J. Patterson,1 D.B. White.7 1Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; 2Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; 3Medicine-Pulmonary, Duke University, Durham, NC; 4Psychiatry, Psychology, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Clinical and Translational Science, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; 5School of Nursing and Center for Bioethics & Health Law, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; 6Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; 7Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.

Keys to Communicating About Prognosis in the ICU: A Multicenter Study of Family, Provider, and Expert Perspectives (FR424-C) Wendy Anderson, MD MS, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Jenica Cimino, BA, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Anna Ungar, MPH MA, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Laura Pollice, BSN RN CCRC, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. Kaitlin Shotsberger, BSN RN, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Shannon Carson. J. Randall Curtis, MD MPH, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Catherine Hough, MD MSc, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Bernard Lo, MD, University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. Michael Matthay, MD, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Michael Peterson, MD, University of California at San Francisco, Fresno, CA. Jay Steingrub, MD, Baystate Medical Center. Springfield, MA. Douglas White, MD MAS, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. (All authors listed above had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.)