Beliefs of physician directors on the management of devastating brain injuries at the Canadian emergency department and intensive care unit interface: a national site-level survey.

PURPOSE: Insufficient evidence-based recommendations to guide care for patients with devastating brain injuries (DBIs) leave patients vulnerable to inconsistent practice at the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) interface. We sought to characterize the beliefs of Canadian emergency medicine (EM) and critical care medicine (CCM) physician site directors regarding current management practices for patients with DBI. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EM and CCM physician directors of adult EDs and ICUs across Canada (December 2022 to March 2023). Our primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who manage (or consult on) patients with DBI in the ED. We conducted subgroup analyses to compare beliefs of EM and CCM physicians. RESULTS: Of 303 eligible respondents, we received 98 (32%) completed surveys (EM physician directors, 46; CCM physician directors, 52). Most physician directors reported participating in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining measures (WLSM) for patients with DBI in the ED (80%, n = 78), but 63% of these (n = 62) said this was infrequent. Physician directors reported that existing neuroprognostication methods are rarely sufficient to support WLSM in the ED (49%, n = 48) and believed that an ICU stay is required to improve confidence (99%, n = 97). Most (96%, n = 94) felt that providing caregiver visitation time prior to WLSM was a valid reason for ICU admission. CONCLUSION: In our survey of Canadian EM and CCM physician directors, 80% participated in WLSM in the ED for patients with DBI. Despite this, most supported ICU admission to optimize neuroprognostication and patient-centred end-of-life care, including organ donation.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'insuffisance des recommandations fondées sur des données probantes pour guider les soins aux individus atteints de lésions cérébrales dévastatrices rend ces personnes vulnérables à des pratiques incohérentes à la jonction entre le service des urgences et de l'unité de soins intensifs (USI). Nous avons cherché à caractériser les croyances des directeurs médicaux canadiens en médecine d'urgence et médecine de soins intensifs concernant les pratiques de prise en charge actuelles des personnes ayant subi une lésion cérébrale dévastatrice. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé un sondage transversal auprès des directeurs médicaux des urgences et des unités de soins intensifs pour adultes du Canada (décembre 2022 à mars 2023). Notre critère d'évaluation principal était la proportion de répondant·es qui prennent en charge (ou jouent un rôle de consultation auprès) des personnes atteintes de lésions cérébrales dévastatrices à l'urgence. Nous avons effectué des analyses en sous-groupes pour comparer les croyances des médecins des urgences et des soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: Sur les 303 personnes répondantes admissibles, 98 (32 %) ont répondu aux sondages (directions médicales des urgences, 46; directions médicales d'USI, 52). La plupart des directeurs médicaux ont déclaré avoir participé à la décision de retirer des traitements de maintien des fonctions vitales (TFMV) pour des patient·es atteint·es de lésions cérébrales dévastatrices à l'urgence (80 %, n = 78), mais 63 % (n = 62) ont déclaré que c'était peu fréquent. Les directions médicales ont indiqué que les méthodes de neuropronostic existantes sont rarement suffisantes pour appuyer le retrait des TMFV à l'urgence (49 %, n = 48) et croyaient qu'un séjour aux soins intensifs était nécessaire pour améliorer leur confiance en ces méthodes (99 %, n = 97). La plupart (96 %, n = 94) estimaient que le fait d'offrir du temps de visite aux personnes soignantes avant le retrait des TMFV était un motif valable d'admission aux soins intensifs. CONCLUSION: Dans le cadre de notre sondage mené auprès des directions médicales des services d'urgence et des USI au Canada, 80 % d'entre elles ont participé au retrait de TMFV à l'urgence pour des patient·es souffrant de lésions cérébrales dévastatrices. Malgré cela, la plupart d'entre elles étaient en faveur d'une admission aux soins intensifs afin d'optimiser le neuropronostic et les soins de fin de vie axés sur les patient·es, y compris le don d'organes.

Organ Donation in Canadian PICUs: A Cross-Sectional Survey, 2021-2022.

OBJECTIVES: To understand contemporary pediatric organ donation programs in Canadian PICUs, including: policies and practices, data collection and reporting, and system and process barriers. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey carried out 2021-2022. SETTING: Canadian PICUs affiliated with a donor physician network. SUBJECTS: Pediatric intensivists identified as the donation program lead, or most knowledgeable about donation for their institution. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A 19-item survey was developed through collaboration with stakeholders from the organ donation and transplantation community within Canada. Domains and items were generated and reduced iteratively during an in-person workshop. Pretesting and pilot testing were completed to ensure readability, flow, clinical sensibility, and construct validity. Fifteen of 16 (94%) invited Canadian PICUs from seven provinces completed the survey representing 88% (15/18) of all noncardiac Canadian PICUs. Surveys were completed between June 2021 and September 2022. All units support donation after death by neurologic criteria (DNC); 14 of 15 indicated donation policies were in place and 1 of 15 indicated no policy but the ability to facilitate donation. Thirteen of 15 units (87%) support donation after death by circulatory criteria (DCC) with policies in place, with 11 of 13 of these indicating routine support of donation opportunities. The majority (13/15) of units identified a donation champion. Of the 16 identified champions across these centers, 13 were physicians and were registered nurses or nurse practitioners. Eight of 13 units (62%) with donation champions had positions supported financially, of which 5 units came from the Organ Donation Organization and the other 3 came from the provincial health authority. Finally, only 3 of 15 PICU donation programs have a pediatric donation committee with family involvement. Variability exists in identification (including determination of death practices), referral, and approach for donation between units. CONCLUSIONS: Although all Canadian PICUs support donation after DNC donation, and most support donation after DCC, variability exists in the identification, referral, and approach of potential donors. There is a notable lack of family involvement in pediatric donation programs. There are many opportunities for standardization of PICU donation programs which may result in improved rates of pediatric organ donation in Canada.