Search

Objectives: Report the use of an objective tool, UK Gold Standards Framework (GSF) criteria, to describe the prevalence, recognition and outcomes of patients with palliative care needs in an Australian acute health setting. The rationale for this is to enable hospital doctors to identify patients who should have a patient-centred discussion about goals of care in hospital., Design: Prospective, observational, cohort study., Participants: Adult in-patients during two separate 24 h periods., Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence of in-patients with GSF criteria, documentation of treatment limitations, hospital and 1 year survival, admission and discharge destination and multivariate regression analysis of factors associated with the presence of hospital treatment limitations and 1 year survival., Results: Of 626 in-patients reviewed, 171 (27.3%) had at least one GSF criterion, with documentation of a treatment limitation discussion in 60 (30.5%) of those patients who had GSF criteria. Hospital mortality was 9.9%, 1 year mortality 50.3% and 3-year mortality 70.2% in patients with GSF criteria. One-year mortality was highest in patients with GSF cancer (73%), renal failure (67%) and heart failure (60%) criteria. Multivariate analysis revealed age, hospital length of stay and presence of the GSF chronic obstructive pulmonary disease criteria were independently associated with the likelihood of an in-hospital treatment limitation. Non-survivors at 3 years were more likely to have a GSF cancer (25% vs 6%, p=0.004), neurological (10% vs 3%, p=0.04), or frailty (45% vs 3%, p=0.04) criteria. After multivariate logistic regression GSF cancer criteria, renal failure criteria and the presence of two or more GSF clinical criteria were independently associated with increased risk of death at 3 years. Patients returning home to live reduced from 69% (preadmission) to 27% after discharge., Conclusions: The use of an objective clinical tool identifies a high prevalence of patients with palliative care needs in the acute tertiary Australian hospital setting, with a high 1 year mortality and poor return to independence in this population. The low rate of documentation of discussions about treatment limitations in this population suggests palliative care needs are not recognised and discussed in the majority of patients., Trial Registration Number: 11/121., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

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.)

Background: Workplace safety culture is a crucial ingredient in patients' outcomes and is increasingly being explored as a guide for quality improvement efforts., Objectives: To establish a baseline understanding of the safety culture in Australian intensive care units., Methods: In a nationwide study of physicians and nurses in 10 Australian intensive care units, the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire intensive care unit version was used to measure safety culture. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the mean scores for the 6 subscales of the questionnaire, and generalized-estimation-equations models were used to test the hypotheses that safety culture differed between physicians and nurses and between nurse leaders and bedside nurses., Results: A total of 672 responses (50.6% response rate) were received: 513 (76.3%) from nurses, 89 (13.2%) from physicians, and 70 (10.4%) from respondents who did not specify their professional group. Ratings were highest for teamwork climate and lowest for perceptions of hospital management and working conditions. Four subscales, job satisfaction, teamwork climate, safety climate, and working conditions, were rated significantly higher by physicians than by nurses. Two subscales, working conditions and perceptions of hospital management, were rated significantly lower by nurse leaders than by bedside nurses., Conclusions: Measuring the baseline safety culture of an intensive care unit allows leaders to implement targeted strategies to improve specific dimensions of safety culture. These strategies ultimately may improve the working conditions of staff and the care that patients receive.