Applying the Care and Communication Bundle to Promote Palliative Care in a Neuro-Intensive Care Unit: Why and How.

Background: Delivery of palliative care in neurointensive care units (neuro-ICUs) can be inconsistent, often due to absence of formal care triggers. The Care and Communication Bundle (CCB) of Quality Indicators provides a standardized process to deliver effective palliative care services in ICUs, but application of these indicators in this setting has not yet been systemically assessed. Objectives: To evaluate the fit of a CCB in the neuro-ICU through a novel scoring system and identify barriers to adherence. Design: CCB standards for a neuro-ICU were delineated. Assessment of documented indicators and barriers was conducted through electronic medical record retrospective review. Setting/Subjects: A 30-bed neuro-ICU in a large Academic Medical Center in the Southeastern United States. Chart reviews were conducted for 133 critically ill neurology and neurosurgery patients who expired between November 2018 and January 2020. Results: Results demonstrate moderate adherence to CCB standards, including excellent consistency in establishment of patient-centered communication and referral to supportive services (e.g., social work, spiritual support). Identified areas for improvement include documentation of patient and family involvement in care process (i.e., advance directive completion, interdisciplinary team meetings). Conclusions: Application of the CCB in the neuro-ICU is useful for examining adherence to time-based triggers of palliative care standards. The novel scoring system offers opportunities to motivate improvement and reduce variation in palliative care integration.

Palliative Care Services in the NeuroICU: Opportunities and Persisting Barriers.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EOL) supportive care, including palliative and hospice services, is an area of increasing importance in critical care. Neurointensivists face unique challenges in providing timely supportive care to terminally ill patients expected to expire in the NeuroICU. OBJECTIVE: This study explored the extent of effective utilization of, and recorded barriers to, palliative and hospice services in a dedicated 30-bed NeuroICU at a large academic medical center. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review of patients who expired in the NeuroICU was conducted. The timeline from patient admission to arrival of palliative care services was traced. Qualitative review of chart notes was used to identify barriers to provision of palliative services. SETTING: A total of 330 patients expired in the NeuroICU during the study period, including 176 from the neurology and 154 from the neurosurgical service. RESULTS: Across services, 146 expired patients were never referred to palliative care or hospice services. Of those referred, over one-third were referred more than 4 days past admission to the NeuroICU. On average, patients were referred with less than 1 day before expiration. Common barriers to referral for supportive services were documented (e.g., patient expected to expire, family declined service). CONCLUSIONS: Despite benefits of palliative care and an in-hospital hospice opportunity, we identified lack of referral, and particularly delays in referral to services as significant barriers. Our study highlights these as missed opportunities for patients and families to receive maximum benefits from these services. Future research should solidify triggers for EOL services in this setting.

Providers' Perspectives on Palliative Care in a Neuromedicine-Intensive Care Unit: End-of-Life Expertise and Barriers to Referral.

OBJECTIVE: This study identifies health care providers' perspectives on palliative care at end of life (EOL) in a neuromedicine-intensive care unit (Neuro-ICU) and barriers to providing palliative care. BACKGROUND: Provider's EOL expertise is crucial in making timely referrals to palliative care as expectation of patient death can be high. Barriers to referral need to be clearly identified so as to engage quality initiatives that improve EOL care delivery. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The study is a survey design using a mixed-methods approach. Providers at a large academic medical center, including doctors, nurses, and social workers, completed a quality improvement survey. MEASUREMENTS: Forty-one providers responded to Likert-type scales assessing their perspectives on palliative care. Their EOL expertise was independently assessed. In addition, barriers to palliative care referral were collected using a checklist and open-ended responses. The latter were reliably content analyzed through a card-sort technique. RESULTS: Three palliative care perspectives were identified: foundational perspective, comfort-care perspective, and holistic perspective. Regression analysis shows that providers' perspectives are differentially related to their EOL expertise. Frequencies of provider-reported barriers to referring patients to palliative care (e.g., lack of care coordination) were determined. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers hold multiple perspectives on what they consider palliative care. Their perspectives are related systematically to different aspects of their EOL expertise. In-house training and quality initiatives could focus on unifying providers' perspectives to create a common language for understanding palliative care. Eliminating individual, intergroup, and organizational barriers is necessary for creating an optimal environment for patients and their families who find themselves, often suddenly, in a Neuro-ICU.