"Gives peace of mind" - Relatives' perspectives of end-of-life conversations.

OBJECTIVES: Planning for end-of-life (EOL) and future treatment and care through advance care planning (ACP) is being increasingly implemented in different healthcare settings, and interest in ACP is growing. Several studies have emphasized the importance of relatives participating in conversations about wishes for EOL and being included in the process. Likewise, research has highlighted how relatives can be a valuable resource in an emergency setting. Although relatives have a significant role, few studies have investigated their perspectives of ACP and EOL conversations. This study explores relatives' experiences of the benefits and disadvantages of having conversations about wishes for EOL treatment. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were held with 29 relatives who had participated in a conversation about EOL wishes with a patient and physician 2 years prior in a variety of Danish healthcare settings. The relatives were interviewed between September 2020 and June 2022. Content analysis was performed on the qualitative data. RESULTS: The interviews revealed two themes: "gives peace of mind" and "enables more openness and common understanding of EOL." Relatives found that conversations about EOL could help assure that patients were heard and enhance their autonomy. These conversations relieved the relatives of responsibility by clarifying or confirming the patients' wishes, and they also made the relatives reflect on their own wishes for EOL. Moreover, they helped patients and relatives address other issues regarding EOL and made wishes more visible across settings. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The results indicate that conducting conversations about wishes for EOL treatment and having relatives participate in those conversations were perceived as beneficial for both relatives and patients. Involving relatives in ACP should be prioritized by physicians and healthcare personnel when holding conversations about EOL.

Presence of the partner in the operating room during emergency caesarean section: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Emergency caesarean sections are often very urgent, with limited time for informing and guiding parents. Is it preferable to leave the partner outside of the operating room, or let the partner accompany the mother? OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence regarding the presence of the partner in the operating room during emergency caesarean sections. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All published literature reporting on emergency caesarean sections in regional or general anaesthesia with the partner present in the operating room were eligible, no matter the design. RESULTS: Twenty-four titles, published between 1984 and 2020, were included; 15 contained original clinical findings and 9 were letters/debates. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and found to be very low/low (17 studies), moderate (6) or good (1). Studies originated from Europe (16 studies), USA/Canada (4), South America (2), Asia (1) and Africa (1). Content data were thematically summarised and were overall either in favour or against having the partner present. Staff seemed reluctant to let partners be present for caesarean sections under general anaesthesia; mothers and partners preferred the partners' presence. Under regional anaesthesia, parents also wished for the partners' presence and described the caesarean section under regional anaesthesia as a predominantly positive experience. Most staff had a favourable attitude towards letting the partner be present for caesarean sections under regional anaesthesia. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence exists regarding the presence of the partner during emergency caesarean sections, but is of low quality. Most parents prefer having their partner present. Staff can be reluctant, especially when general anaesthesia is used.

Facilitators and Barriers for Initiating Conversations About End of Life.

Background: Conducting a conversation about wishes for treatment at end of life (EOL) has been shown to improve EOL care for patients and relatives. Still, only a minority of physicians conduct the conversation, which might lead to unwanted interventions and treatments. Objectives: The purpose of this survey was to examine which factors facilitate and hinder physicians across a wide range of health care facilities to initiate the conversation about wishes for treatment at EOL. Design: A questionnaire survey based on a Delphi-developed questionnaire. Setting/Subjects: The questionnaire was sent to both hospital physicians and general practitioners (GPs) in a Danish region. Results: More than 3000 physicians were invited to participate in the survey. Of these, 782 responded, 622 working at a hospital department, and 160 from general practice clinics. Results showed that senior physicians, GPs, and physicians working in a medical department feel best equipped to conduct the conversation. Moreover, senior physicians pointed to their experience as physicians as being of great importance for conducting the conversation, whereas junior physicians found training in conducting the conversation as an important factor. Conclusion: Our study indicates that different factors depending on the health care setting and the seniority of the physician facilitate or hinder physicians from conducting the conversation about wishes for treatment at EOL. Being aware of these differences and making a concerted effort depending on setting and seniority might help implement and conduct the conversation.

Non-sedation-Does it improve health-related quality of life after critical illness? A 3-month follow-up sub-study of the NONSEDA trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is associated with severely impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for years following discharge. The NONSEDA trial was a multicenter randomized trial on non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients in Scandinavia. The aim of this sub-study was to assess the effect of non-sedation on HRQoL and degree of independence in activities in daily living (ADL) 3 months post-ICU. METHODS: All survivors were asked to complete the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) and the Barthel Index 3 months post-ICU. To limit missing data, reminders were sent. If unsuccessful, telephone interviews could be used. Outcomes were the level of HRQoL and ADL-function in each group. All outcomes were assessed blinded. RESULTS: Of the 700 patients included 412 survived to follow-up. A total of 344 survivors participated (82%). Baseline data were equal between the two groups. Mean SF-36 scores for the non-sedated vs sedated patients were as follows: Physical Function 45 vs 40, P = .69, Bodily Pain: 61 vs 52, P = .81, General Health: 50 vs 50, P = .84, Vitality: 42 vs 44, P = .85, Social Function: 75 vs 63, P = .85, Role Emotional: 58 vs 50, P = .82, Mental Health: 70 vs 70, P = .89, Role Physical: 25 vs 28, P = .32, Physical Component Score: 38 vs 37, P = .81, Mental Component Score: 48 vs 46, P = .94, Barthel Index: 20 vs 20, P = .74. CONCLUSION: Randomization to non-sedation neither improved nor impaired health-related quality of life or degree of independence in activities in daily living 3 months post-ICU discharge.

Effect of non-sedation on physical function in survivors of critical illness - A substudy of the NONSEDA randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Critical illness impairs physical function. The NONSEDA trial was a multicenter randomized trial, assessing non-sedation versus sedation during mechanical ventilation. The aim of this sub-study was to assess the effect of non-sedation on physical function. METHODS: All patients from one NONSEDA trial site were included. At ICU discharge and three months thereafter, survivors were assessed for physical function. RESULTS: 205 patients were included, 118 survived to follow-up, 116 participated (98%). PRIMARY OUTCOME: Three months after ICU-discharge, health-related quality of life (SF-36, physical component score) was similar (non-sedated 38.3 vs sedated 36.6, mean difference 1.7, 95% CI -1.7 to 5.1), as was function in activities of daily living (Barthel Index, non-sedated 19.5 vs sedated 18, median difference 1.5, 95% CI -0.2 to 3.2). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Non-sedated patients had a better Barthel Index at ICU-discharge (median 9 vs 4, median difference 5, 95% CI 2.5 to 7.5). At three months post-ICU discharge, the two groups did not differ regarding handgrip strength, walking distance, muscle size or biomechanical data. CONCLUSION: Non-sedation did not lead to improved quality of life regarding physical function or better function in activities of everyday living. Non-sedated patients had a better physical recovery at ICU discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.govNCT02034942, registered January 14., 2014.

Effect of non-sedation on post-traumatic stress and psychological health in survivors of critical illness-A substudy of the NONSEDA randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness can cause post-traumatic stress and impaired mental health. The NONSEDA trial was a Scandinavian multicenter RCT, assessing non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. The aim of this substudy was to assess the effect of non-sedation on post-traumatic stress and mental health. METHODS: This substudy is based on all participating patients from a single NONSEDA trial site (Kolding, Denmark). Patients were randomized to sedation or non-sedation within the first 24 hours of mechanical ventilation. Three months after ICU discharge survivors were examined by a neuropsychologist for post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression, and filled out the SF-36 questionnaire regarding quality of life. RESULTS: The two groups of survivors were similar with regard to baseline characteristics, length of admission and mechanical ventilation. Sedated patients received more propofol and midazolam. Doses of morphine and haloperidole were equal. PRIMARY OUTCOME: the number of patients with post-traumatic stress disorder did not differ between groups (non-sedated: 2 patients vs sedated: 0, P = .23). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: there were no differences between groups in Beck Anxiety Index (median, non-sedated: 0 vs sedated: 0, P = .62), Beck Depression Index (median, non-sedated: 7 vs sedated: 4, P = .24), SF-36 mental component score (mean, non-sedated: 46.7 vs sedated: 47.5, P = .73) or number of patients with symptoms of post-traumatic stress (8 in both groups, P = .89). CONCLUSION: Levels of PTSD, anxiety and depression and quality of life regarding mental health were similar between the non-sedated and sedated group.

Nonsedation or Light Sedation in Critically Ill, Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

BACKGROUND: In critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients, daily interruption of sedation has been shown to reduce the time on ventilation and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Data on whether a plan of no sedation, as compared with a plan of light sedation, has an effect on mortality are lacking. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, mechanically ventilated ICU patients to a plan of no sedation (nonsedation group) or to a plan of light sedation (i.e., to a level at which the patient was arousable, defined as a score of -2 to -3 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale [RASS], on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) (sedation group) with daily interruption. The primary outcome was mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were the number of major thromboembolic events, the number of days free from coma or delirium, acute kidney injury according to severity, the number of ICU-free days, and the number of ventilator-free days. Between-group differences were calculated as the value in the nonsedation group minus the value in the sedation group. RESULTS: A total of 710 patients underwent randomization, and 700 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The characteristics of the patients at baseline were similar in the two trial groups, except for the score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, which was 1 point higher in the nonsedation group than in the sedation group, indicating a greater chance of in-hospital death. The mean RASS score in the nonsedation group increased from -1.3 on day 1 to -0.8 on day 7 and, in the sedation group, from -2.3 on day 1 to -1.8 on day 7. Mortality at 90 days was 42.4% in the nonsedation group and 37.0% in the sedated group (difference, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.2 to 12.2; P = 0.65). The number of ICU-free days and of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the trial groups. The patients in the nonsedation group had a median of 27 days free from coma or delirium, and those in the sedation group had a median of 26 days free from coma or delirium. A major thromboembolic event occurred in 1 patient (0.3%) in the nonsedation group and in 10 patients (2.8%) in the sedation group (difference, -2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.7 [unadjusted for multiple comparisons]). CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated ICU patients, mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between those assigned to a plan of no sedation and those assigned to a plan of light sedation with daily interruption. (Funded by the Danish Medical Research Council and others; NONSEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01967680.).

Pressure ulcers in critically ill patients - Preventable by non-sedation? A substudy of the NONSEDA-trial.

OBJECTIVE: Pressure ulcers still pose a significant clinical challenge to critically ill patients. This study is a substudy of the multicenter NONSEDA-trial, where critically ill patients were randomised to sedation or non-sedation during mechanical ventilation. The objective of this substudy was to assess if non-sedation affected the occurrence of pressure ulcers. DESIGN: Retrospective assessment of data from a single NONSEDA-trial site. SETTING: Mixed intensive care unit. OUTCOME MEASURES: The occurrence of pressure ulcers, described by grade and location. RESULTS: 205 patients were included. Patients with pressure ulcers in the two groups were comparable with regards to baseline data. There were 44 ulcers in 32 patients in the sedated group and 31 ulcers in 25 patients in the non-sedated group (p=0.08). 64% of the ulcers in sedated patients were located on sacrum and heels, whereas 68% of the ulcers in non-sedated patients were related to equipment (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Non-sedation did not significantly reduce the number of pressure ulcers. Non-sedation significantly affected the location of ulcers: non-sedated patients mainly had ulcers related to equipment, whereas sedated patients mainly had ulcers on the sacrum and heels.