"I'd rather wait and see what's around the corner": A multi-perspective qualitative study of treatment escalation planning in frailty.

INTRODUCTION: People living with frailty risk adverse outcomes following even minor illnesses. Admission to hospital or the intensive care unit is associated with potentially burdensome interventions and poor outcomes. Decision-making during an emergency is fraught with complexity and potential for conflict between patients, carers and clinicians. Advance care planning is a process of shared decision-making which aims to ensure patients are treated in line with their wishes. However, planning for future care is challenging and those living with frailty are rarely given the opportunity to discuss their preferences. The aim of the ProsPECT (Prospective Planning for Escalation of Care and Treatment) study was to explore perspectives on planning for treatment escalation in the context of frailty. We spoke to people living with frailty, their carers and clinicians across primary and secondary care. METHODS: In-depth online or telephone interviews and online focus groups. The topic guide explored frailty, acute decision-making and planning for the future. Data were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. Preliminary findings were presented to a sample of study participants for feedback in two online workshops. RESULTS: We spoke to 44 participants (9 patients, 11 carers and 24 clinicians). Four main themes were identified: frailty is absent from treatment escalation discussions, planning for an uncertain future, escalation in an acute crisis is 'the path of least resistance', and approaches to facilitating treatment escalation planning in frailty. CONCLUSION: Barriers to treatment escalation planning include a lack of shared understanding of frailty and uncertainty about the future. Emergency decision-making is focussed on survival or risk aversion and patient preferences are rarely considered. To improve planning discussions, we recommend frailty training for non-specialist clinicians, multi-disciplinary support, collaborative working between patients, carers and clinicians as well as broader public engagement.

Commonly Missed Findings on Chest Radiographs: Causes and Consequences.

Chest radiography (CXR) continues to be the most frequently performed imaging examination worldwide, yet it remains prone to frequent errors in interpretation. These pose potential adverse consequences to patients and are a leading motivation for medical malpractice lawsuits. Commonly missed CXR findings and the principal causes of these errors are reviewed and illustrated. Perceptual errors are the predominant source of these missed findings. The medicolegal implications of such errors are explained. Awareness of commonly missed CXR findings, their causes, and their consequences are important in developing approaches to reduce and mitigate these errors.

Breaking bad news in the era of artificial intelligence and algorithmic medicine: an exploration of disclosure and its ethical justification using the hedonic calculus.

An appropriate ethical framework around the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare has become a key desirable with the increasingly widespread deployment of this technology. Advances in AI hold the promise of improving the precision of outcome prediction at the level of the individual. However, the addition of these technologies to patient-clinician interactions, as with any complex human interaction, has potential pitfalls. While physicians have always had to carefully consider the ethical background and implications of their actions, detailed deliberations around fast-moving technological progress may not have kept up. We use a common but key challenge in healthcare interactions, the disclosure of bad news (likely imminent death), to illustrate how the philosophical framework of the 'Felicific Calculus' developed in the eighteenth century by Jeremy Bentham, may have a timely quasi-quantitative application in the age of AI. We show how this ethical algorithm can be used to assess, across seven mutually exclusive and exhaustive domains, whether an AI-supported action can be morally justified.

Human albumin solutions in intensive care: A review.

Albumin plays a key role in the critically ill patient acting as a prognostic marker and as a therapy in the form of human albumin solutions. However, the use of human albumin solution has varied over time with notable differences between health systems. Whilst its use is widely accepted for some clinical indications, its role has not always been clear in the critically ill and has been found to be harmful in some cohorts. Numerous studies have showed conflicting results and critical care clinicians have not always been guided by robust evidence. Nonetheless, at present the use of human albumin solution appears to be increasing again in the United Kingdom. Below, we discuss the latest evidence base for its use in critically ill patients.

The Association between Supraphysiologic Arterial Oxygen Levels and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients. A Multicenter Observational Cohort Study.

Rationale: There is conflicting evidence on harm related to exposure to supraphysiologic PaO2 (hyperoxemia) in critically ill patients.Objectives: To examine the association between longitudinal exposure to hyperoxemia and mortality in patients admitted to ICUs in five United Kingdom university hospitals.Methods: A retrospective cohort of ICU admissions between January 31, 2014, and December 31, 2018, from the National Institute of Health Research Critical Care Health Informatics Collaborative was studied. Multivariable logistic regression modeled death in ICU by exposure to hyperoxemia.Measurements and Main Results: Subsets with oxygen exposure windows of 0 to 1, 0 to 3, 0 to 5, and 0 to 7 days were evaluated, capturing 19,515, 10,525, 6,360, and 4,296 patients, respectively. Hyperoxemia dose was defined as the area between the PaO2 time curve and a boundary of 13.3 kPa (100 mm Hg) divided by the hours of potential exposure (24, 72, 120, or 168 h). An association was found between exposure to hyperoxemia and ICU mortality for exposure windows of 0 to 1 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% compatibility interval [CI], 0.95-1.38; P = 0.15), 0 to 3 days (OR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.74; P = 0.02), 0 to 5 days (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.07-2.13; P = 0.02), and 0 to 7 days (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.11-2.72; P = 0.02). However, a dose-response relationship was not observed. There was no evidence to support a differential effect between hyperoxemia and either a respiratory diagnosis or mechanical ventilation.Conclusions: An association between hyperoxemia and mortality was observed in our large, unselected multicenter cohort. The absence of a dose-response relationship weakens causal interpretation. Further experimental research is warranted to elucidate this important question.

Endogenous IgG hypogammaglobulinaemia in critically ill adults with sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Plasma immunoglobulin concentrations are acutely altered in critically ill patients with sepsis. However, the association between immunoglobulin levels on the day of sepsis diagnosis and subsequent mortality is inconsistent. METHODS: Systematic review of studies that report immunoglobulin measurements and mortality among adults with sepsis managed in a critical care setting. Fixed and random effect meta-analyses were conducted using low IgG levels as primary exposure and acute mortality as the primary outcome. Both variables were used as defined in individual studies. RESULTS: The prevalence of a low immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentration on the day of sepsis diagnosis was variable [58.3% (IQR 38.4-65.5%)]. Three cut-off points (6.1, 6.5 and 8.7 g/L) were used to define the lower limit of IgG concentrations in the included studies. A subnormal IgG level on the day of sepsis diagnosis was not associated with an increased risk of death in adult patients with severe sepsis and/or septic shock by both fixed and random effect meta-analysis (OR [95% CI] 1.32 [0.93-1.87] and 1.48 [0.78-2.81], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identifies studies of limited quality reporting heterogeneous sepsis cohorts with varying lower limits of normal for IgG. Although our data suggest that a subnormal IgG measurement on the day of sepsis diagnosis does not identify a subgroup of patients with a higher risk of death, further studies are needed to confirm or refute this finding, and whether optimal cut-offs and time windows can be defined for IgG measurement. This would determine whether patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin therapy for sepsis could be stratified using IgG levels.