Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Rationale Communication with family of critically ill patients is often poor and associated with family distress. Objectives To determine if an intensive care unit (ICU) communication facilitator reduces family distress and intensity of end-of-life care. Methods We conducted a randomized trial at two hospitals. Eligible patients had a predicted mortality greater than or equal to 30% and a surrogate decision maker. Facilitators supported communication between clinicians and families, adapted communication to family needs, and mediated conflict. Measurements and Main Results Outcomes included depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among family 3 and 6 months after ICU and resource use. We identified 488 eligible patients and randomized 168. Of 352 eligible family members, 268 participated (76%). Family follow-up at 3 and 6 months ranged from 42 to 47%. The intervention was associated with decreased depressive symptoms at 6 months (P = 0.017), but there were no significant differences in psychological symptoms at 3 months or anxiety or PTSD at 6 months. The intervention was not associated with ICU mortality (25% control vs. 21% intervention; P = 0.615) but decreased ICU costs among all patients (per patient: $75,850 control, $51,060 intervention; P = 0.042) and particularly among decedents ($98,220 control, $22,690 intervention; P = 0.028). Among decedents, the intervention reduced ICU and hospital length of stay (28.5 vs. 7.7 d and 31.8 vs. 8.0 d, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusions Communication facilitators may be associated with decreased family depressive symptoms at 6 months, but we found no significant difference at 3 months or in anxiety or PTSD. The intervention reduced costs and length of stay, especially among decedents. This is the first study to find a reduction in intensity of end-of-life care with similar or improved family distress. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00720200).

Abstract Background Improved communication with family members of critically ill patients can decrease the prolongation of dying in the intensive care unit (ICU), but few data exist to guide the conduct of this communication. Objective Our objective was to identify missed opportunities for physicians to provide support for or information to family during family conferences. Methods We identified ICU family conferences in four hospitals that included discussions about withdrawing life support or delivery of bad news. Fifty-one conferences were audiotaped, including 214 family members. Thirty-six physicians led the conferences and some physicians led more than one. We used qualitative methods to identify and categorize missed opportunities, defined as an occurrence when the physician had an opportunity to provide support or information to the family and did not. Main results Fifteen family conferences (29%) had missed opportunities identified. These fell into three categories: opportunities to listen and respond to family; opportunities to acknowledge and address emotions; and opportunities to pursue key principles of medical ethics and palliative care, including exploration of patient preferences, explanation of surrogate decision making, and affirmation of nonabandonment. The most commonly missed opportunities were those to listen and respond, but examples from other categories suggest value in being aware of these opportunities. Conclusions Identification of missed opportunities during ICU family conferences provides suggestions for improving communication during these conferences. Future studies are needed to demonstrate whether addressing these opportunities will improve quality of care.

Abstract Rationale Because of high mortality, end-of-life care is an important component of intensive care. Objectives We evaluated the effectiveness of a quality-improvement intervention to improve intensive care unit (ICU) end-of-life care. Methods We conducted a cluster-randomized trial randomizing 12 hospitals. The intervention targeted clinicians with five components: clinician education, local champions, academic detailing, clinician feedback of quality data, and system supports. Outcomes were assessed for patients dying in the ICU or within 30 hours of ICU discharge using surveys and medical record review. Families completed Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) and satisfaction surveys. Nurses completed the QODD. Data were collected during baseline and follow-up at each hospital (May 2004 to February 2008). We used robust regression models to test for intervention effects, controlling for site, patient, family, and nurse characteristics. Measurements and Main Results All hospitals completed the trial with 2,318 eligible patients and target sample sizes obtained for family and nurse surveys. The primary outcome, family-QODD, showed no change with the intervention (P = 0.33). There was no change in family satisfaction (P = 0.66) or nurse-QODD (P = 0.81). There was a nonsignificant increase in ICU days before death after the intervention (hazard ratio = 0.9; P = 0.07). Among patients undergoing withdrawal of mechanical ventilation, there was no change in time from admission to withdrawal (hazard ratio = 1.0; P = 0.81). Conclusions We found this intervention was associated with no improvement in quality of dying and no change in ICU length of stay before death or time from ICU admission to withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Improving ICU end-of-life care will require interventions with more direct contact with patients and families. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00685893).

Abstract Rationale Palliative care in the intensive care unit (ICU) is an important focus for quality improvement. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-faceted quality improvement intervention to improve palliative care in the ICU. Methods We performed a single-hospital, before–after study of a quality-improvement intervention to improve palliative care in the ICU. The intervention consisted of clinician education, local champions, academic detailing, feedback to clinicians, and system support. Consecutive patients who died in the ICU were identified pre- (n = 253) and postintervention (n = 337). Families completed Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit (FS-ICU) and Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) surveys. Nurses completed the QODD. The QODD and FS-ICU were scored from 0 to 100. We used Mann-Whitney tests to assess family results and hierarchical linear modeling for nurse results. Measurements and Main Results There were 590 patients who died in the ICU or within 24 hours of transfer; 496 had an identified family member. The response rate for family members was 55% (275 of 496) and for nurses, 89% (523/590). The primary outcome, the family QODD, showed a trend toward improvement (pre, 62.3; post, 67.1), but was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). Family satisfaction increased but not significantly. The nurse QODD showed significant improvement (pre, 63.1; post, 67.1; P < 0.01) and there was a significant reduction in ICU days before death (pre, 7.2; post, 5.8; P < 0.01). Conclusions We found no significant improvement in family-assessed quality of dying or in family satisfaction with care, we found but significant improvement in nurse-assessed quality of dying and reduction in ICU length of stay with an intervention to integrate palliative care in the ICU. Improving family ratings may require interventions that have more direct contact with family members.

To determine whether the dose of narcotics and benzodiazepines is associated with length of time from mechanical ventilation withdrawal to death in the setting of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the ICU. Retrospective chart review. University-affiliated, level I trauma center. Consecutive critically ill patients who had mechanical ventilation withdrawn and subsequently died in the ICU during two study time periods. There were 75 eligible patients with a mean age of 59 years. The primary ICU admission diagnoses included intracranial hemorrhage (37%), trauma (27%), acute respiratory failure (27%), and acute renal failure (20%). Patients died during a median of 35 min (range, 1 to 890 min) after ventilator withdrawal. On average, 16.2 mg/h opiates in morphine equivalents and 7.5 mg/h benzodiazepine in lorazepam equivalents were administered during the time period starting 1 h before ventilator withdrawal and ending at death. There was no statistically significant relationship between the average hourly narcotic and benzodiazepine use during the 1-h period prior to ventilator withdrawal until death, and the time from ventilator withdrawal to death. The restriction of medication assessment in the last 2 h of life showed an inverse association between the use of benzodiazepines and time to death. For every 1 mg/h increase in benzodiazepine use, time to death was increased by 13 min (p = 0.015). There was no relationship between narcotic dose and time to death during the last 2 h of life (p = 0.11). We found no evidence that the use of narcotics or benzodiazepines to treat discomfort after the withdrawal of life support hastens death in critically ill patients at our center. Clinicians should strive to control patient symptoms in this setting and should document the rationale for escalating drug doses.