Search

Background: To test the hypothesis that Intensive Care Unit (ICU) doctors and nurses differ in their personal preferences for treatment from the general population, and whether doctors and nurses make different choices when thinking about themselves, as compared to when they are treating a patient., Methods: Cross sectional, observational study conducted in 13 ICUs in Australia in 2017 using a discrete choice experiment survey. Respondents completed a series of choice sets, based on hypothetical situations which varied in the severity or likelihood of: death, cognitive impairment, need for prolonged treatment, need for assistance with care or requiring residential care., Results: A total of 980 ICU staff (233 doctors and 747 nurses) participated in the study. ICU staff place the highest value on avoiding ending up in a dependent state. The ICU staff were more likely to choose to discontinue therapy when the prognosis was worse, compared with the general population. There was consensus between ICU staff personal views and the treatment pathway likely to be followed in 69% of the choices considered by nurses and 70% of those faced by doctors. In 27% (1614/5945 responses) of the nurses and 23% of the doctors (435/1870 responses), they felt that aggressive treatment would be continued for the hypothetical patient but they would not want that for themselves., Conclusion: The likelihood of returning to independence (or not requiring care assistance) was reported as the most important factor for ICU staff (and the general population) in deciding whether to receive ongoing treatments. Goals of care discussions should focus on this, over likelihood of survival., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To describe the effect of a communication skills training programme on patient-centred goals of care documentation and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with life-limiting illnesses (LLI) referred for intensive care management., Methods: Prospective before-and-after cohort study in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia. The population was 222 adult patients with LLI referred to the intensive care unit (ICU). The study was divided into two periods, before (1 May to 31 July 2015) and after (15 September to 15December 2015) the intervention. The intervention was a 2-day, small group, simulated-patient, communication skills course, and process of care for patients with LLI. The primary outcome was documentation of patient-centred goals of care discussion (PCD) within 48 hours of referral to the ICU. Secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes and 90-day mortality., Results: The intervention was associated with increased documentation of a PCD from 50% to 69% (p=0.004) and 43% to 94% (p<0.0001) in patients deceased by day 90. A significant decrease in critical care as the choice of resuscitation goal (61% vs 42%, p=0.02) was observed. Although there was no decrease in admission to ICU, there was a significant decrease in medical emergency team call prevalence (87% vs 73%, p=0.009). The cancer and organ failure groups had a significant decrease in 90-day mortality (75% vs 44%, p=0.02; 42% vs 16%, p=0.01), and the frailty group had a significant decrease in 90-day readmissions (48% vs 19%, p=0.003)., Conclusions: The intervention was associated with increased PCD documentation and decrease in the choice of critical care as the resuscitation goal. Admissions to ICU did not decrease, and although limited by study design, condition-specific trajectory changes, clinical interventions and outcomes warrant further study., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To describe the prevalence, characteristics, long-term outcomes and goals-of-care discussions of patients with objective indicators of life-limiting illnesses (LLIs) referred to the intensive care unit., Design, Setting and Patients: A prospective, observational, cohort study of all adult inpatients referred to the ICU by the medical emergency team or by direct referral, during the period 30 August 2012 to 1 February 2013, at a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia., Main Outcome Measures: Mortality, LLIs, discharge destination and documentation on goals of care in medical record., Results: A total of 649 of 1024 patients referred to the ICU had an LLI, and only 34.4% of these patients had goals of care documented. Overall, 49.2% were admitted to the ICU, 48.4% were discharged home, and the 1-year mortality was 35.1%. The most common LLI criteria were heart disease (52.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (24.8%) and frailty (23.7%). The highest 1-year mortality was associated with pre-hospital residence in a nursing home (64.9%), dementia (63.3%), cancer (60.8%) and frailty (50.6%). Analysis of patients by clinical trajectory showed that 1-year mortality was significantly higher for patients with cancer (59.6%), combined organ failure and frailty (47.3%), frailty (43.8%) and organ failure (23.6%), compared with patients with no LLI (P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: A high proportion of patients referred to the ICU have an LLI, and this is associated with prolonged hospital length of stay and a high 1-year mortality, and only one-quarter have documented discussions on goals of care. Patients with cancer-related and frailty-related LLIs have the worst survival trajectories.

Objective: To evaluate the use of high-fidelity simulation for summative high-stakes assessment of intensive care trainees, focusing on non-technical skills (NTS), testing feasibility and acceptability of simulation assessment, and the reliability of two NTS rating scales., Design, Setting and Participants: Prospective observational study of senior intensive care trainees in a simulated specialist examination., Methods: Participants undertook a simulated patient management scenario and were assessed using two rating scales: the Anaesthesia Non-technical Skills (ANTS) scale and the Ottawa Global Rating Scale (GRS). Assessors were trained, currently active, high-stakes examiners. Participants also completed a survey on simulation-based summative assessment., Outcome Measures: The inter-rater reliability of two rating scales for NTS assessment. We evaluated the feasibility of simulation-based assessment, and used survey results to assess acceptability to participants., Results: Simulation assessment was feasible. Participants considered simulation-based high-stakes assessment to be acceptable and felt their scenario performance was reflective of real-world performance. Participants identified a need for debriefing following scenario-based assessment. Inter-rater reliability was fair for the ANTS and Ottawa GRS scores (intra-class correlation coefficient, 0.39 and 0.42, respectively). There was only fair agreement between raters for an NTS pass or fail (weighted kappa, 0.32) and for a technical skills pass or fail (weighted kappa, 0.36)., Conclusions: Summative high-stakes assessment using a single simulated scenario was feasible and acceptable to senior intensive care trainees. The low inter-rater reliability for the ANTS and Ottawa GRS rating scales and for pass or fail discrimination may limit its incorporation into an existing examination format.

Objective: Despite government encouragement for patients to make advance plans for medical treatment, and the increasing numbers of patients who have done this, there is little research that examines how doctors regard these plans., Design: We surveyed Australian intensive care doctors, using a hypothetical clinical scenario, to evaluate how potential end-of-life treatment decisions might be influenced by advance planning - the appointment of a medical enduring power of attorney (MEPA) or an advance care plan (ACP). Using open-ended questions we sought to explore the reasoning behind the doctors' decisions., Results: 275 surveys were returned (18.3% response rate). We found that opinions expressed by an MEPA and ACP have some influence on treatment decisions, but that intensive care doctors had major reservations. Most did not follow the request for palliation made by the MEPA in the hypothetical scenario., Conclusions: Many intensive care doctors believe end-oflife decisions remain medical decisions, and MEPAs and ACPs need only be respected when they accord with the doctor's treatment decision. This study suggests a need for further education of doctors, particularly those working in intensive care, who are responsible for initiating and maintaining life support treatment.