Opening the Door: The Experience of Chronic Critical Illness in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Chronically critically ill patients have recurrent infections, organ dysfunction, and at least half die within 1 year. They are frequently cared for in long-term acute care hospitals, yet little is known about their experience in this setting. Our objective was to explore the understanding and expectations and goals of these patients and surrogates. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews with chronically critically ill long-term acute care hospital patients or surrogates. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. SETTING: One long-term acute care hospital. SUBJECTS: Chronically critically ill patients, defined by tracheotomy for prolonged mechanical ventilation, or surrogates. INTERVENTION: Semi-structured conversation about quality of life, expectations, and planning for setbacks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 50 subjects (30 patients and 20 surrogates) were enrolled. Thematic analyses demonstrated: 1) poor quality of life for patients; 2) surrogate stress and anxiety; 3) optimistic health expectations; 4) poor planning for medical setbacks; and 5) disruptive care transitions. Nearly 80% of patient and their surrogate decision makers identified going home as a goal; 38% were at home at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Our study describes the experience of chronically critically ill patients and surrogates in an long-term acute care hospital and the feasibility of patient-focused research in this setting. Our findings indicate overly optimistic expectations about return home and unmet palliative care needs, suggesting the need for integration of palliative care within the long-term acute care hospital. Further research is also needed to more fully understand the challenges of this growing population of ICU survivors.

Conversations About Goals and Values Are Feasible and Acceptable in Long-Term Acute Care Hospitals: A Pilot Study.

RATIONALE: The chronically critically ill have survived acute critical illness but require prolonged mechanical ventilation. These patients are frequently transferred from acute care to long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) for prolonged recovery, yet many suffer setbacks requiring readmission to acute care. The patient's relatively improved condition while at the LTACH might be an opportunity for communication regarding care goals; however, there have been no prior studies of the feasibility of such conversations in the LTACH. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility, acceptability, and potential usefulness of conversations about serious illness with chronic critical illness patients or their surrogate decision makers after LTACH admission. METHODS: We adapted an existing conversation guide for use in chronically critically ill (defined by tracheotomy for prolonged ventilation) LTACH patients or their surrogates to explore views about quality of life, understanding of medical conditions, expectations, and planning for setbacks. These conversations were conducted by one interviewer and summarized for the patients' clinicians. We surveyed patients, surrogates, and clinicians to assess acceptability. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 subjects were approached and 50 (71%) were enrolled, including 30 patients and 20 surrogates. The median duration of the conversation was 14 minutes 45 seconds [IQR 12:46, 19]. The presence of ongoing mechanical ventilation did not lead to longer conversations; in fact, conversations with patients were shorter than those with surrogates. The majority of subjects (81%) described the conversation as worthwhile. The majority of clinicians (73%) reported that the conversation offered a new and significant understanding of the patient's preferences if a setback were to occur. CONCLUSIONS: Conversations about serious illness care goals can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time, are acceptable to chronically critically ill patients and their surrogate decision makers in the LTACH, and are perceived as worthwhile by patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

Epidemiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a long-term acute care hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the epidemiology and microbiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in a long-term acute care hospital (LTACH). DESIGN: Retrospective study of prospectively identified cases of VAP. SETTING: Single-center, 207-bed LTACH with the capacity to house 42 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, evaluated from April 1, 2006, through January 31, 2008. METHODS: Data on the occurrence of VAP were collected prospectively as part of routine infection surveillance at Radius Specialty Hospital. After March 2006, Radius Specialty Hospital implemented a bundle of interventions for the prevention of VAP (hereafter referred to as the VAP-bundle approach). A case of VAP was defined as a patient who required mechanical ventilation at Radius Specialty Hospital for at least 48 hours before any symptoms of pneumonia appeared and who met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for VAP. Sputum samples were collected from a tracheal aspirate if there was clinical suspicion of VAP, and these samples were semiquantitatively cultured. RESULTS: During the 22-month study period, 23 cases of VAP involving 19 patients were associated with 157 LTACH admissions (infection rate, 14.6%), corresponding to a rate of 1.67 cases per 1,000 ventilator-days, which is a 56% reduction from the VAP rate of 3.8 cases per 1,000 ventilator-days reported before the implementation of the VAP-bundle approach (P< .001). Microbiological data were available for 21 (91%) of 23 cases of VAP. Cases of VAP in the LTACH were frequently polymicrobial (mean number +/- SD, 1.78+/-1.0 pathogens per case of VAP), and 20 (95%) of 21 cases of VAP had at least 1 pathogen (Pseudomonas species, Acinetobacter species, gram-negative bacilli resistant to more than 3 antibiotics, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) cultured from a sputum sample. LTACH patients with VAP were more likely to have a neurological reason for ventilator dependence, compared with LTACH patients without VAP (69.6% of cases of VAP vs 39% of cases of respiratory failure; P= .014). In addition, patients with VAP had a longer length of LTACH stay, compared with patients without VAP (median length of stay, 131 days vs 39 days; P= .002). In 6 (26%) of 23 cases of VAP, the patient was eventually weaned from use of mechanical ventilation. Of the 19 patients with VAP, 1 (5%) did not survive the LTACH stay. CONCLUSIONS: The VAP rate in the LTACH is lower than the VAP rate reported in acute care hospitals. Cases of VAP in the LTACH were frequently polymicrobial and were associated with multidrug-resistant pathogens and increased length of stay. The guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that are aimed at reducing cases of VAP appear to be effective if applied in the LTACH setting.