Mortality 7 years after prolonged treatment on a surgical intensive care unit.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Long-term intensive care treatment confers a substantial physical, psychological and social burden on patients, their relatives and the treatment team. It is essential to know the outcome of patients with long-term treatment and to establish factors that possibly can predict mortality. Only few Swiss studies have previously addressed this issue. METHODS: This retrospective observational study at a Swiss tertiary academic medical care centre included patients who were treated for ≥7 consecutive days at the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012. Follow-up ended on 30 September 2018. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty patients were included, and three were lost to follow-up. Fifty-two patients (21.1%) died in the ICU, 25 (10.1%) after transfer to the normal ward. Thirty-one patients (12.5%) died within one year after the beginning of intensive care treatment. Altogether, the one-year mortality was 43.7% (108 patients). At the end of follow-up, 99 patients (40.1%) were still alive. Polytrauma patients represent a special group with a survival of more than 90%. Median patient age was 66 years (interquartile range 56-75); two thirds were men. Patients who died within one year of beginning treatment in the ICU were significantly older (median 71 vs 63 years, p <0.001), had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (mean 2.3 vs 1.2, p <0.001), a longer intensive care stay (median 13.9 vs 10.6 days, p = 0.001), a higher SAPS-II score (mean 52.7 vs 45.6, p = 0.001), a higher NEMS score (mean 1772.4 vs 1230.4, p <0.001) and more complications (mean 2.9 vs 2.0, p <0.001) than patients who survived at least 1 year. Those who died within 1 year more often developed pneumonia (50.9% vs 29.5%, p = 0.001), pleural empyema (13.0% vs 2.9%, p = 0.005), septic shock (51.9% vs 20.1%, p <0.001) or critical illness polyneuropathy (16.7% vs 2.9%, p <0.001). Moreover, they more frequently (30.6% vs 15.1%, p = 0.006) required a renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term mortality of patients with prolonged intensive-care treatment is high. Scores combined with factors shown to be associated with an increased short- and long-term mortality can help to identify patients at risk for death within one year after ICU treatment.

Weekly Internal Ethical Case Discussions in an ICU-Results Based on 9 Years of Experience With a Highly Structured Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Various ethical challenges are prevalent in ICUs. In order to handle these problems, a highly structured internal ethical case discussion within the multiprofessional team was implemented in 2011 in a Swiss ICU and has been regularly practiced almost weekly until present. To explore the results of all ethical case discussions taking place in a general ICU and to discuss the outcomes of the patients. To identify the conditions facilitating the implementation of regular ethical case discussions. DESIGN: Retrospective case series analysis. SETTING: Mixed academic ICU. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: All patients who had an ethical case discussion between January 2011 and December 2019 following the approach called Modular, Ethical, Treatment decisions, Allocation of resources at the micro-level, and Process. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Weekly ethical case discussions held regularly on a fixed date were found to be practical for the observed ICU. A total of 314 ethical case discussions were realized in 281 patients. Median patient age was 70 years (interquartile range, 62-77 yr); two thirds were men. The results were categorized into the following groups: established therapy continues, complications to be treated (n = 53; 16.9%); therapy continues, patient's will to be explored further (n = 77; 24.5%); therapy continues, complications to be treated only after evaluation (n = 62; 19.7%); therapy continues with limitations (e.g., do-not-resuscitate order) (n = 98; 31.2%); and change of treatment plan to end-of-life care (n = 17; 5.4%). Of the discussed patients, 115 (40.9%) died in the ICU and 29 (10.3%) after transfer to the normal ward. Seven patients (2.5%) were transferred to a hospice and 55 (19.6%) to another hospital. Sixty-nine (24.6%) were discharged to a rehabilitative facility and six returned home. CONCLUSIONS: Regular ethical case discussions can be successfully implemented, enabling careful review of the patient's will and balancing it with the prognosis of the disease. This facilitates a necessary change of the therapeutic goal whenever appropriate.

Advance Directives in the Neurocritically Ill: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of advance directives or directives disclosed by healthcare agents and their influence on decisions to withdraw/withhold life-sustaining care in neurocritically ill adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. STUDY SELECTION: Screening was performed using predefined search terms to identify studies describing directives of neurocritically ill patients from 2000 to 2019. The review was registered prior to the screening process (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification number 149185). DATA EXTRACTION: Data were collected using standardized forms. Primary outcomes were the frequency of directives and associated withholding/withdrawal of life-sustaining care. DATA SYNTHESIS: Out of 721 articles, 25 studies were included representing 35,717 patients. The number of studies and cohort sizes increased over time. A median of 39% (interquartile range, 14-72%) of patients had directives and/or healthcare agents. The presence of directives was described in patients with stroke, status epilepticus, neurodegenerative disorders, neurotrauma, and neoplasms, with stroke patients representing the largest subgroup. Directives were more frequent among patients with neurodegenerative disorders compared with patients with other illnesses (p = 0.043). In reference to directives, care was adapted in 71% of European, 50% of Asian, and 42% of American studies, and was withheld or withdrawn more frequently over time with a median of 58% (interquartile range, 39-89%). Physicians withheld resuscitation in reference to directives in a median of 24% (interquartile range, 22-70%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies regarding the use and translation of directives in neurocritically ill patients are increasing. In reference to directives, care was adapted in up to 71%, withheld or withdrawn in 58%, and resuscitation was withheld in every fourth patient, but the quality of evidence regarding their effects on critical care remains weak and the risk of bias high. The limited number of patients having directives is worrisome and studies aiming to increase the use and translation of directives are scarce. Efforts need to be made to increase the perception, use, and translation of directives of the neurocritically ill.

How to introduce medical ethics at the bedside - Factors influencing the implementation of an ethical decision-making model.

BACKGROUND: As the implementation of new approaches and procedures of medical ethics is as complex and resource-consuming as in other fields, strategies and activities must be carefully planned to use the available means and funds responsibly. Which facilitators and barriers influence the implementation of a medical ethics decision-making model in daily routine? Up to now, there has been little examination of these factors in this field. METHODS: A medical ethics decision-making model called METAP was introduced on three intensive care units and two geriatric wards. An evaluation study was performed from 7 months after deployment of the project until two and a half years. Quantitative and qualitative methods including a questionnaire, semi-structured face-to-face and group-interviews were used. RESULTS: Sixty-three participants from different professional groups took part in 33 face-to-face and 9 group interviews, and 122 questionnaires could be analysed. The facilitating factors most frequently mentioned were: acceptance and presence of the model, support given by the medical and nursing management, an existing or developing (explicit) ethics culture, perception of a need for a medical ethics decision-making model, and engaged staff members. Lack of presence and acceptance, insufficient time resources and staff, poor inter-professional collaboration, absence of ethical competence, and not recognizing ethical problems were identified as inhibiting the implementation of the METAP model. However, the results of the questionnaire as well as of explicit inquiry showed that the respondents stated to have had enough time and staff available to use METAP if necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitators and barriers of the implementation of a medical ethics decision-making model are quite similar to that of medical guidelines. The planning for implementing an ethics model or guideline can, therefore, benefit from the extensive literature and experience concerning the implementation of medical guidelines. Lack of time and staff can be overcome when people are convinced that the benefits justify the effort.

[Acute care nurses' ethical reasoning: a thematic analysis]. / Ethische Reflexion von Pflegenden im Akutbereich--eine Thematische Analyse.

BACKGROUND: In the day-to-day course of nursing, ethical issues are being openly articulated to a growing extent. However, nurses only rarely systematically address these issues. This subject was explored in interviews with professionals who have a particular focus on ethics. OBJECTIVE: Gain input for further developing the skills of nursing staff in ethical reasoning. METHOD: In two focus groups and four individual interviews, we questioned 14 professionals, including nine nurses, who have a special interest in ethics. RESULTS: Nurses find it ethically problematic when the wishes of patients are not respected or something is forced on them, creating the impression that the care being given is exacerbating rather than alleviating the patient's suffering. These problematic aspects are often overlooked because the consequences of the action in question are not immediately apparent. Ethical issues in nursing are often addressed in informal, non-systematic discussions among nursing staff. Nurses actively and confidently engage in discussions on treatment goals, and the teamwork with doctors is usually experienced as being based on mutual respect and partnership. The inherent hierarchical role differences between nursing and medical staff nevertheless manifest in ethical issues. CONCLUSION: Through the practical application of ethical reasoning in day-to-day nursing, structured discussions of the ethical aspects of cases and dedicated further education, nurses should learn to better recognise ethical issues in nursing and effectively analyse them and find solutions.

To speak, or not to speak -- do clinicians speak about dying and death with geriatric patients at the end of life?

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Research describing healthcare professionals' conversations about issues of dying and death with chronically ill geriatric patients is rare, especially in Europe. The study reviews the willingness and difficulties of physicians and nurses to speak about dying and death with geriatric patients. METHOD: Interview study with 14 physicians and 17 nurses. RESULTS: The majority (21/31) of the interviewed physicians and nurses reported a considerable willingness to speak about dying and death with patients approaching the end of life. Obstacles to addressing this topic included external circumstances such as lack of time and/or privacy (14/31); personal reasons, such as feeling confronted with one's own mortality (12/31); resistance or denial in their patients (12/31); and the cognitive state of the patients (7/31). CONCLUSIONS: Discussing and preparing (the patient) for an end-of-life decision early enough is a prerequisite of good palliative care. It is an ethical obligation on the side of the healthcare professionals to support openness, respect for autonomy, and dignity by addressing issues of dying and death with the patient in order to help facilitate advance care planning.

Evidence - competence - discourse: the theoretical framework of the multi-centre clinical ethics support project METAP.

In this paper we assume that 'theory' is important for Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS). We will argue that the underlying implicit theory should be reflected. Moreover, we suggest that the theoretical components on which any clinical ethics support (CES) relies should be explicitly articulated in order to enhance the quality of CES. A theoretical framework appropriate for CES will be necessarily complex and should include ethical (both descriptive and normative), metaethical and organizational components. The various forms of CES that exist in North-America and in Europe show their underlying theory more or less explicitly, with most of them referring to some kind of theoretical components including 'how-to' questions (methodology), organizational issues (implementation), problem analysis (phenomenology or typology of problems), and related ethical issues such as end-of-life decisions (major ethical topics). In order to illustrate and explain the theoretical framework that we are suggesting for our own CES project METAP, we will outline this project which has been established in a multi-centre context in several healthcare institutions. We conceptualize three 'pillars' as the major components of our theoretical framework: (1) evidence, (2) competence, and (3) discourse. As a whole, the framework is aimed at developing a foundation of our CES project METAP. We conclude that this specific integration of theoretical components is a promising model for the fruitful further development of CES.