Adverse Events After Transition From ICU to Hospital Ward: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine adverse events and associated factors and outcomes during transition from ICU to hospital ward (after ICU discharge). DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Ten adult medical-surgical Canadian ICUs. PATIENTS: Patients were those admitted to one of the 10 ICUs from July 2014 to January 2016. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two ICU physicians independently reviewed progress and consultation notes documented in the medical record within 7 days of patient's ICU discharge date to identify and classify adverse events. The adverse event data were linked to patient characteristics and ICU and ward physician surveys collected during the larger prospective cohort study. Analyses were conducted using multivariable logistic regression. Of the 451 patients included in the study, 84 (19%) experienced an adverse event, the majority (62%) within 3 days of transfer from ICU to hospital ward. Most adverse events resulted only in symptoms (77%) and 36% were judged to be preventable. Patients with adverse events were more likely to be readmitted to the ICU (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.4-13.0), have a longer hospital stay (mean difference, 16.1 d; 95% CI, 8.4-23.7) or die in hospital (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.8-11.8) than those without an adverse event. ICU and ward physician predictions at the time of ICU discharge had low sensitivity and specificity for predicting adverse events, ICU readmissions, and hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events are common after ICU discharge to hospital ward and are associated with ICU readmission, increased hospital length of stay and death and are not predicted by ICU or ward physicians.

Multipronged strategy to reduce routine-priority blood testing in intensive care unit patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to reduce unnecessary ordering of routine-priority blood tests. METHODS: In this before-after study, we studied all patients admitted to a 15-bed tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) from July 1, 2011, to June 27, 2013. Based on input from intensivists, acceptable indications for ordering routine-priority complete blood counts (CBCs) and electrolyte/renal panels were developed. Sequential interventions were (1) education sessions for ICU housestaff about the lack of evidence for routine-priority blood tests; (2) an item on the ICU rounds checklist to ask if routine-priority blood tests were indicated; (3) a rubber stamp, "routine bloodwork NOT indicated for tomorrow," was used in the chart; (4) a prompt in the electronic ordering system to allow only accepted indications; and (5) a second educational session for ICU housestaff. We measured numbers of tests done before and after these interventions. RESULTS: After introduction of interventions, there were 0.14 fewer routine-priority CBCs and 0.13 fewer routine-priority electrolyte/renal panels done per patient-day. Nonroutine CBCs and nonroutine electrolyte/renal panels increased by 0.03 and 0.02 tests per patient-day, respectively. This overall reduction in tests equates to an adjusted savings of $11,200.24 over 1 year in 1 ICU. There were no differences in demographics, severity of illness, length of stay, or number of red cell transfusions between the 2 periods. CONCLUSION: Sequential interventions to discourage the ordering of routine-priority blood tests in an ICU were associated with a significant decrease in the number of tests ordered.

Defining priorities for improving end-of-life care in Canada.

BACKGROUND: High-quality end-of-life care should be the right of every Canadian. The objective of this study was to identify aspects of end-of-life care that are high in priority as targets for improvement using feedback elicited from patients and their families. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, cross-sectional survey involving patients with advanced, life-limiting illnesses and their family caregivers. We administered the Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) questionnaire along with a global rating question to measure satisfaction with end-of-life care. We derived the relative importance of individual questions on the CANHELP questionnaire from their association with a global rating of satisfaction, as determined using Pearson correlation coefficients. To determine high-priority issues, we identified questions that had scores indicating high importance and low satisfaction. RESULTS: We approached 471 patients and 255 family members, of whom 363 patients and 193 family members participated, with response rates of 77% for patients and 76% for families. From the perspective of patients, high-priority areas needing improvement were related to feelings of peace, to assessment and treatment of emotional problems, to physician availability and to satisfaction that the physician took a personal interest in them, communicated clearly and consistently, and listened. From the perspective of family members, similar areas were identified as high in priority, along with the additional areas of timely information about the patient's condition and discussions with the doctor about final location of care and use of end-of-life technology. INTERPRETATION: End-of-life care in Canada may be improved for patients and their families by providing better psychological and spiritual support, better planning of care and enhanced relationships with physicians, especially in aspects related to communication and decision-making.

The development and validation of a novel questionnaire to measure patient and family satisfaction with end-of-life care: the Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) Questionnaire.

The purpose of this study was to further validate a novel instrument to measure satisfaction with end-of-life care, called the Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) questionnaire. Data were collected by a cross-sectional survey of patients who had advanced, life-limiting illnesses and their family caregivers, and who completed CANHELP, a global rating of satisfaction, and a quality of life questionnaire. We conducted factor analysis, assessed internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha, and evaluated construct validity by describing the correlation amongst CANHELP, global rating of satisfaction and the quality of life questionnaire scores. There were 361 patient and 193 family questionnaires available for analysis. In the factor analysis, we identified six easily interpretable factors which explained 55.4% and 60.2% of the variance for the patient and caregiver questionnaire, respectively. For the patient version, the subscales derived from these factors were Relationship with Doctors, Illness Management, Communication, Decision-Making, Role of the Family, and Your Well-being. For the family questionnaire, the factors were Relationship with Doctors, Characteristics of Doctors and Nurses, Illness Management, Communication and Decision-Making, Your Involvement, and Your Well-being. Each subscale for each questionnaire had acceptable to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.69-0.94). We observed good correlations between the CANHELP overall satisfaction score and global rating of satisfaction (correlation coefficient 0.49 and 0.63 for patient and family, respectively) which was greater than the correlations between CANHELP and the quality of life instruments. We conclude that the CANHELP Questionnaire is a valid and internally consistent instrument to measure satisfaction with end-of-life care.

Toward optimal end-of-life care for patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: insights from a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' needs and perspectives is fundamental to improving end-of-life (EOL) care. However, little is known of what quality care means to patients who have advanced lung disease. OBJECTIVES: To describe ratings of importance and satisfaction with elements of EOL care, informational needs, decision-making preferences, obstacles to a preferred location of death, clinical outcomes, and health care use before and during an index hospital admission for patients who have advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: A questionnaire with regard to quality EOL care was administered to patients older than 55 years of age who had advanced medical disease in five Canadian teaching hospitals. RESULTS: For 118 hospitalized patients who had advanced COPD, the following items were rated as extremely important for EOL care: not being kept alive on life support when there is little hope for meaningful recovery (54.9% of respondents), symptom relief (46.6%), provision of care and health services after discharge (40.0%), trust and confidence in physicians (39.7%), and not being a burden on caregivers (39.6%). Compared with patients who had metastatic cancer, patients with COPD had lower (P<0.05) satisfaction with care, interest in information about prognosis, cardiopulmonary resuscitation or mechanical ventilation, and referral rates to palliative care, whereas use of acute care services was higher (P<0.05) for patients who had advanced COPD. CONCLUSION: Canadian patients who have advanced COPD identify several priorities for improving care. Avoidance of prolonged or unwanted life support requires more effective communication, decision making and goal setting. Patients also deserve better symptom control and postdischarge strategies to minimize perceived burdens on caregivers, emergency room visits and hospital admissions.

Most critically ill patients are perceived to die in comfort during withdrawal of life support: a Canadian multicentre study.

PURPOSE: Most deaths in intensive care units (ICUs) follow a withdrawal of life support (LS). Evaluation of this process including the related perspectives of grieving family members is integral to improvement of palliation in the ICU. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, cohort study in six Canadian university-affiliated ICUs included 206 ICU patients (length of stay >or=48 hr) who received mechanical ventilation (MV) before LS withdrawal. We recorded modes, sequence and time course of LS withdrawal and drug usage (4 hr before; 4-8 hr and 8-12 hr before death). We asked a specified family member to assess patient comfort and key aspects of end-of life care. RESULTS: MV was withdrawn from 155/206 (75.2%) patients; 97/155 (62.6%) died after extubation and 58/155 (37.4%) died with an airway in place. The most frequently used drugs and the cumulative doses [median (range)] in the four hours before death were: morphine 119/206, 24 mg, (2-450 mg); midazolam 45/206, 24 mg, (2-380 mg); and lorazepam 35/206, 4 mg, (1-80 mg). These doses did not differ among the three time periods before death. Of 196 responses from family members most indicated that patients were perceived to be either totally (73, 37.2%), very (48, 24.5%), or mostly comfortable (58, 29.6%). Times to death, morphine use and family members' perceptions of comfort were similar for each type of change to MV. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were perceived by family members to die in comfort during a withdrawal of LS. Perceptions of patient comfort and drug use in the hours before death were not associated with the mode or sequence of withdrawal of LS, or the time to death.