An Adjudication Protocol for Severe Pneumonia.

Background: Clinical end points that constitute successful treatment in severe pneumonia are difficult to ascertain and vulnerable to bias. The utility of a protocolized adjudication procedure to determine meaningful end points in severe pneumonia has not been well described. Methods: This was a single-center prospective cohort study of patients with severe pneumonia admitted to the medical intensive care unit. The objective was to develop an adjudication protocol for severe bacterial and/or viral pneumonia. Each episode of pneumonia was independently reviewed by 2 pulmonary and critical care physicians. If a discrepancy occurred between the 2 adjudicators, a third adjudicator reviewed the case. If a discrepancy remained after all 3 adjudications, consensus was achieved through committee review. Results: Evaluation of 784 pneumonia episodes during 593 hospitalizations achieved only 48.1% interobserver agreement between the first 2 adjudicators and 78.8% when agreement was defined as concordance between 2 of 3 adjudicators. Multiple episodes of pneumonia and presence of bacterial/viral coinfection in the initial pneumonia episode were associated with lower interobserver agreement. For an initial episode of bacterial pneumonia, patients with an adjudicated day 7-8 clinical impression of cure (compared with alternative impressions) were more likely to be discharged alive (odds ratio, 6.3; 95% CI, 3.5-11.6). Conclusions: A comprehensive adjudication protocol to identify clinical end points in severe pneumonia resulted in only moderate interobserver agreement. An adjudicated end point of clinical cure by day 7-8 was associated with more favorable hospital discharge dispositions, suggesting that clinical cure by day 7-8 may be a valid end point to use in adjudication protocols.

Identifying Patients in Need of Goals of Care Conversations: Reliability, Acceptability, and Prognostic Significance of the Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment Conversation Trigger Tool for Patients with Cancer.

Background: Simple methods to help teams identify patients with goals of care (GOC) conversation needs are lacking. Objectives: To develop a tool to identify hospitalized patients who may benefit from GOC conversations. Methods: The Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment (PACT) Conversation Trigger Tool was implemented as part of a quality improvement initiative in 10 Illinois hospitals and validated in a cohort of patients admitted to the coordinating site's oncology unit (n = 135). Results: The tool was reliable and acceptable to clinicians using it across sites. Thirty percent (n = 40) of patients screened at the coordinating site's oncology unit triggered positive. These patients were more likely to have a do-not-resuscitate order (43% vs. 11%) and palliative care consult (53% vs. 20%) and had lower mean survival time (125 vs. 248 days) than those who did not trigger (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The tool is reliable, acceptable, and can identify hospitalized oncology patients who may benefit from GOC conversations.