Process of Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation at End of Life in the ICU: Clinician Perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Nearly one-quarter of all Americans die in the ICU. Many of their deaths are anticipated and occur following the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation (WMV). However, there are few data on which to base best practices for interdisciplinary ICU teams to conduct WMV. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the perceptions of current WMV practices among ICU clinicians, and what are their opinions of processes that might improve the practice of WMV at end of life in the ICU? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective two-center observational study conducted in Boston, Massachusetts, the Observational Study of the Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation (OBSERVE-WMV) was designed to better understand the perspectives of clinicians and experience of patients undergoing WMV. This report focuses on analyses of qualitative data obtained from in-person surveys administered to the ICU clinicians (nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians) caring for these patients. Surveys assessed a broad range of clinician perspectives on planning, as well as the key processes required for WMV. This analysis used independent open, inductive coding of responses to open-ended questions. Initial codes were reconciled iteratively and then organized and interpreted using a thematic analysis approach. Opinions were assessed on how WMV could be improved for individual patients and the ICU as a whole. RESULTS: Among 456 eligible clinicians, 312 in-person surveys were completed by clinicians caring for 152 patients who underwent WMV. Qualitative analyses identified two main themes characterizing high-quality WMV processes: (1) good communication (eg, mutual understanding of family preferences) between the ICU team and family; and (2) medical management (eg, planning, availability of ICU team) that minimizes patient distress. Team member support was identified as an essential process component in both themes. INTERPRETATION: Clinician perceptions of the appropriateness or success of WMV prioritize the quality of team and family communication and patient symptom management. Both are modifiable targets of interventions aimed at optimizing overall WMV.

Hip Fracture Treatment and Outcomes Among Community-Dwelling People Living With Dementia.

Importance: The decision for surgical vs nonsurgical treatment for hip fracture can be complicated among community-dwelling people living with dementia. Objective: To compare outcomes of community-dwelling people living with dementia treated surgically and nonsurgically for hip fracture. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study undertook a population-based analysis of national Medicare fee-for-service data. Participants included community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with dementia and an inpatient claim for hip fracture from January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. Analyses were conducted from November 10, 2022, to October 17, 2023. Exposure: Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment for hip fracture. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality within 30, 90, and 180 days. Secondary outcomes consisted of selected post-acute care services. Results: Of 56 209 patients identified with hip fracture (73.0% women; mean [SD] age, 86.4 [7.0] years), 33 142 (59.0%) were treated surgically and 23 067 (41.0%) were treated nonsurgically. Among patients treated surgically, 73.3% had a fracture of the femoral head and neck and 40.2% had moderate to severe dementia (MSD). Among patients with MSD and femoral head and neck fracture, 180-day mortality was 31.8% (surgical treatment) vs 45.7% (nonsurgical treatment). For patients with MSD treated surgically vs nonsurgically, the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 180-day mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.49-0.62; P < .001) and the adjusted OR was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.53-0.66; P < .001). Among patients with mild dementia and femoral head and neck fracture, 180-day mortality was 26.5% (surgical treatment) vs 34.9% (nonsurgical treatment). For patients with mild dementia who were treated surgically vs nonsurgically for femoral head and neck fracture, the unadjusted OR of 180-day mortality was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < .001) and the adjusted OR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.63-0.79; P < .001). For patients with femoral head and neck fracture, there was no difference in admission to a nursing home within 180 days when treated surgically vs nonsurgically. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of community-dwelling patients with dementia and fracture of the femoral head and neck, patients with MSD and mild dementia treated surgically experienced lower odds of death compared with patients treated nonsurgically. Although avoiding nursing home admission is important to persons living with dementia, being treated surgically for hip fracture did not necessarily confer a benefit in that regard. These data can help inform discussions around values and goals with patients and caregivers when determining the optimal treatment approach.

Best Practice Recommendations for Integrating Health Equity into Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Dementia Care.

Context: Minoritized populations experience higher rates of dementia and worse health outcomes than non-Hispanic white people, but they are vastly underrepresented in pragmatic clinical trials embedded in health care systems (ePCTs). Little guidance is available to consider health equity-relevant issues in ePCTs. Objective: This report describes the development, structure, and content of a guidance document developed by the National Institute on Aging Imbedded Pragmatic AD/ADRD Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory to help investigators systematically assess the integration of health equity into all aspects of ePCT design. Design: Led by a task force of IMPACT investigators, a literature review of existing frameworks for health equity considerations in clinical trials was conducted. Next, priority health equity-relevant recommendations in the domains of ePCT design were solicited from Collaboratory experts. The 50 submitted recommendations were reduced to 36 nonoverlapping best practices and categorized into 6 domains, as follows: Getting Started, Community Stakeholder Engagement, Design and Analysis, Intervention Design and Implementation, Health Care System and Participant Selection, and Selecting Outcomes. Each domain had 6 best practice recommendations consisting of a succinctly worded main sentence, with 1 to 2 explanatory sentences. The content was finalized through an iterative process of editing and revision. Conclusions: Although specifically focused on ePCTs involving dementia care, the best practices are applicable to any ePCT and can be useful to advance health equity in traditional clinical trials. This guidance document provides a first step toward promoting holistic, structured integration of health equity into the design and conduct of ePCTs as a matter of good science.