RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether telemedicine technology can be used to reliably determine the neurologic diagnosis of death (NDD) in patients with catastrophic brain injury (CBI). METHODS: We included a convenience sample of patients with CBI at a single academic medical center from November 2016 through June 2018. We simultaneously performed brain death evaluation at the bedside and remotely via telemedicine. Remote examiners were neurointensivists who were experienced and knowledgeable in the NDD. In addition to standard clinical examination, we used quantitative pupillometry to evaluate pupil size and reactivity. We determined the proportion of agreement for each NDD examination element and the overall diagnosis of brain death between bedside and remote examiners. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with mean age 46 ± 18 years underwent 30 paired NDD examinations. Twenty-eight (97%) patients met the NDD criteria and were pronounced dead. One patient did not meet the NDD criteria and died after withdrawal of life support. With the exception of qualitative assessment of pupillary reactivity, we observed excellent agreement (97%-100% across NDD examination elements) between bedside and remote examiners and 97% agreement on the overall diagnosis of brain death. Unlike qualitative pupillary assessment, quantitative pupillometry was consistently interpretable by remote examiners. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that remote telemedicine technology can be used to verify the findings of bedside examiners performing NDD examinations when a pupillometer is used to assess pupillary reactivity. When performed by neurocritical care experts, the telemedicine NDD examination has potential to facilitate timely and accurate certification of brain death in patients with CBI. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence on the concordance of neurologic diagnosis of death by telemedicine and bedside examiners.
RESUMO
Rationale: During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) have shifted communication with patients' families toward chiefly telehealth methods (phone and video) to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Family and clinician perspectives about phone and video communication in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet well understood. Increased knowledge about clinicians' and families' experiences with telehealth may help to improve the quality of remote interactions with families during periods of hospital visitor restrictions during COVID-19.Objectives: To explore experiences, perspectives, and attitudes of family members and ICU clinicians about phone and video interactions during COVID-19 hospital visitor restrictions.Methods: We conducted a qualitative interviewing study with an intentional sample of 21 family members and 14 treating clinicians of cardiothoracic and neurologic ICU patients at an academic medical center in April 2020. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with each participant. We used content analysis to develop a codebook and analyze interview transcripts. We specifically explored themes of effectiveness, benefits and limitations, communication strategies, and discordant perspectives between families and clinicians related to remote discussions.Results: Respondents viewed phone and video communication as somewhat effective but inferior to in-person communication. Both clinicians and families believed phone calls were useful for information sharing and brief updates, whereas video calls were preferable for aligning clinician and family perspectives. Clinicians and families expressed discordant views on multiple topics-for example, clinicians worried they were unsuccessful in conveying empathy remotely, whereas families believed empathy was conveyed successfully via phone and video. Communication strategies suggested by families and clinicians for remote interactions include identifying a family point person to receive updates, frequently checking family understanding, positioning the camera on video calls to help family see the patient and their clinical setting, and offering time for the family and patient to interact without clinicians participating.Conclusions: Telehealth communication between families and clinicians of ICU patients appears to be a somewhat effective alternative when in-person communication is not possible. Use of communication strategies specific to phone and video can improve clinician and family experiences with telehealth.