The Patient Dignity Inventory and Dignity-Related Distress among the Critically Ill.

CONTEXT: Critical illness confers a significant risk of psychological distress, both during and after intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The Patient Dignity Inventory is a 25-item instrument initially designed to measure psychosocial, existential and symptom-related distress in terminally ill patients. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to validate the inventory as a means of identifying distress in inpatient critical care settings. METHODS: Single-center prospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to one of five ICUs within the University of Pennsylvania Health System for greater than 48 hours from January 2019 to February 2020. Patients completed the inventory in addition to the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-seven questionnaires. RESULTS: The tool's internal structure was assessed via principal components analysis. 155 participants consented, completed the surveys and were included for analysis. Scores on the inventory showed evidence of internal consistency when used in critical care settings (Cronbach's α=0.95). Moreover, principal components analysis elucidated four themes prevalent in critically-ill patients: Illness-related Concerns, Interactions with Others, Peace of Mind and Dependency. Construct validity was assessed through correlational analysis with depression and anxiety questionnaires. Scores on the inventory appear to be valid for assessing dignity-related psychological concerns in the critical care setting although there is overlap among components and with anxiety and depression scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the inventory can be used to assess patient distress in critical care settings. Further research may elucidate the role of dignity-based interventions in treating and preventing post-intensive care psychological symptoms.

Interprofessional Training and Communication Practices Among Clinicians in the Postoperative ICU Handoff.

BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR)-to-ICU handoffs require coordinated communication between clinicians with different professional backgrounds. However, individual studies have not simultaneously evaluated handoff training and OR-to-ICU handoff practices among interprofessional clinicians that participate in these team-based handoffs. METHODS: The objective of this study was to characterize communication training, practices, and preferences of interprofessional clinicians who engage in OR-to-ICU handoffs. The researchers conducted a mixed methods cohort study using surveys (quantitative) and semistructured interviews (qualitative). Surveys aimed to quantitatively assess the quality of prior handoff training, preferences for clinical information in handoffs, and participation in various handoff activities. Interviews aimed to elicit more in-depth clinician perspectives on these topics through open-ended discussion. The frontline clinicians who were surveyed and interviewed included surgery and anesthesia residents, registered nurses, and advanced practice providers who worked in two ICUs at an urban academic medical center in the United States. RESULTS: In a survey with a 71.8% response rate (130/181), 45.7% (32/70) of residents, 17.4% (4/23) of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), 83.3% (10/12) of ICU nurse practitioners (NPs), and 81.0% (17/21) of ICU RNs indicated that their clinical degree-granting education had not provided adequate preparation for OR-to-ICU handoffs. On-the-job training was deemed not adequate preparation by 35.7% (25/70) of residents, 21.7% (5/23) of CRNAs, 58.3% (7/12) of ICU NPs, and 23.8% (5/21) of ICU RNs. Through 30 semistructured interviews, clinicians from all professions expressed interest in interprofessional communication education and in understanding the perspectives and priorities of care team members in OR-to-ICU handoffs. Clinicians also highlighted the potential value of interprofessional communication training taking place early in a clinical career, during degree-granting education. CONCLUSION: Clinicians exhibit profession-based differences in OR-to-ICU handoff training, practices, and information needs. Education focused on interprofessional communication is a potential approach to facilitate improved OR-to-ICU handoff communication.

Nerve Block Use after Hip Fracture Versus Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although peripheral nerve blocks are associated with improved pain control and end outcomes among older adults with hip fracture, their current utilization among US hip fracture patients is not well understood. We characterized contemporary use of peripheral nerve blocks after hip fracture over time and identified predictors of nerve block receipt. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of claims data from one large national private US insurer. SETTING: US acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 94 985 adults aged 50 years and older hospitalized for a femoral neck, intertrochanteric, or subtrochanteric fracture; 409 263 adults aged 50 years and older hospitalized for elective hip or knee arthroplasty between 2004 and 2016. MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of a peripheral nerve block for pain control, based on Current Procedural Terminology codes in physician service claims. RESULTS: Overall, 2874 hip fracture patients (3.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.9-3.1) received a nerve block for pain control, and the percentage receiving a block increased from .4% in 2004-2006 (95% CI = .3%-.6%) to 4.6% in 2013-2016 (95% CI = 4.4%-4.8%; P < .001). The adjusted odds of receiving a nerve block was lower for patients with vs without dementia (odds ratio [OR] = .88; 95% CI = .80-.98; P = .02) and among patients aged 75 to 84 vs 64 years or younger (OR = .86; 95% CI = .74-1.00; P = .02). The odds of nerve block receipt did not vary according to race, ethnicity, fracture location, or most other common comorbidities. Compared with patients with hip fracture, the adjusted odds of nerve block receipt were 2 times higher among patients undergoing elective hip replacement and more than 30 times higher among patients undergoing elective knee replacement. CONCLUSION: Although use of peripheral nerve blocks for pain control after hip fracture has increased over time, fewer than 5 of every 100 patients hospitalized with hip fracture currently receive a peripheral nerve block, suggesting possible underuse. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:835-840, 2020.

A Partially Structured Postoperative Handoff Protocol Improves Communication in 2 Mixed Surgical Intensive Care Units: Findings From the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of standardizing operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs in a mixed surgical population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Standardizing OR to ICU handoffs improves information transfer after cardiac surgery, but there is limited evidence in other surgical contexts. METHODS: This prospective interventional cohort study (NCT02267174) was conducted in 2 surgical ICUs in 2 affiliated hospitals. From 2014 to 2016, we developed, implemented, and assessed the effectiveness of a new standardized handoff protocol requiring bedside clinician communication using an information template. The primary study outcome was number of information omissions out of 13 possible topics, recorded by trained observers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and multivariable regression. RESULTS: We observed 165 patient transfers (68 pre-, 97 postintervention). Before standardization, observed handoffs had a mean 4.7 ±â€Š2.9 information omissions each. After standardization, information omissions decreased 21.3% to 3.7 ±â€Š1.9 (P = 0.023). In a pre-specified subanalysis, information omissions for new ICU patients decreased 36.2% from 4.7 ±â€Š3.1 to 3.0 ±â€Š1.6 (P = 0.008, interaction term P = 0.008). The decrement in information omissions was linearly associated with the number of protocol steps followed (P < 0.001). After controlling for patient stability, the intervention was still associated with reduced omissions. Handoff duration increased after standardization from 4.1 ±â€Š3.3 to 8.0 ±â€Š3.9 minutes (P < 0.001). ICU mortality and length of stay did not change postimplementation. CONCLUSION: Standardizing OR to ICU handoffs significantly improved information exchange in 2 mixed surgical ICUs, with a concomitant increase in handoff duration. Additional research is needed to identify barriers to and facilitators of handoff protocol adherence.

Nephrology in the Academic Intensive Care Unit: A Qualitative Study of Interdisciplinary Collaboration.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Collaboration between nephrology consultants and intensive care unit (ICU) teams is important in light of the high incidence of acute kidney injury in today's ICUs. Although there is considerable debate about how nephrology consultants and ICU teams should collaborate, communicative dynamics between the 2 parties remain poorly understood. This article describes interactions between nephrology consultants and ICU teams in the academic medical setting. STUDY DESIGN: Focused ethnography using semi-structured interviews and participant observation. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was used to enroll nephrologists, nephrology fellows, and ICU practitioners across several roles collaborating in 3 ICUs (a medical ICU, a surgical ICU, and a cardiothoracic surgical ICU) of a large urban US academic medical center. Participant observation (150 hours) and semi-structured interviews (35) continued until theoretical saturation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview and fieldnote transcripts were coded in an iterative team-based process. Explanation was developed using an abductive approach. RESULTS: Nephrology consultants and surgical ICU teams exhibited discordant preferences about the aggressiveness of renal replacement therapy based on different understandings of physiology, goals of care, and acuity. Collaborative difficulties resulting from this discordance led to nephrology consultants often serving as dialysis proceduralists rather than diagnosticians in surgical ICUs and to consultants sometimes choosing not to express disagreements about clinical care because of the belief that doing so would not lead to changes in the course of care. LIMITATIONS: Aspects of this single-site study of an academic medical center may not be generalizable to other clinical settings and samples. Surgical team perspectives would provide further detail about nephrology consultation in surgical ICUs. The effects of findings on patient care were not examined. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in approach between internal medicine-trained nephrologists and anesthesia- and surgery-trained intensivists and surgeons led to collaborative difficulties in surgical ICUs. These findings stress the need for medical teamwork research and intervention to address issues stemming from disciplinary siloing rooted in long-term socialization to different disciplinary practices.

Developing a Standard Handoff Process for Operating Room-to-ICU Transitions: Multidisciplinary Clinician Perspectives from the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) Study.

BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR)-to-ICU handoffs place patients at risk for preventable harm. Numerous studies have described standardized handoff procedures following cardiac surgery, but no existing literature describes a general OR-to-ICU handoff system. METHODS: As part of the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) study, a postoperative handoff procedure was developed by conducting interviews and focus groups with staff routinely involved in OR-to-ICU patient transitions in two mixed surgical ICUs, which included nurses, house staff, and advanced practice providers. Transcripts were analyzed according to grounded theory. Surveys, attending physician interviews, and field notes further informed process development. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 62 individuals, and three focus groups were held with 19 participants. Clinicians endorsed the importance of the OR-to-ICU handoff but identified several barriers to consistently achieving an ideal handoff-mainly, time pressure, unclear expectations, and confusion about other clinicians' informational needs. Participants were receptive to a standardized handoff process, provided that it was not overly prescriptive. Surveys (n = 132) revealed unreliable information transfer with current OR-to-ICU handoffs. These findings and preexisting OR-to-ICU handoff literature were used to develop a novel handoff process and information template suitable for standard use in a mixed surgical ICU. CONCLUSION: OR and ICU teams agreed on handoffs' importance but expressed important barriers to consistently practicing ideal handoffs. Future work is needed to determine whether the handoff procedures developed by incorporating bedside provider perspectives improve patient outcomes.

Structural, Nursing, and Physician Characteristics and 30-Day Mortality for Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery in Pennsylvania.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac surgery ICU characteristics and clinician staffing patterns have not been well characterized. We sought to describe Pennsylvania cardiac ICUs and to determine whether ICU characteristics are associated with mortality in the 30 days after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: From 2012 to 2013, we conducted a survey of cardiac surgery ICUs in Pennsylvania to assess ICU structure, care practices, and clinician staffing patterns. ICU data were linked to an administrative database of cardiac surgery patient discharges. We used logistic regression to measure the association between ICU variables and death in 30 days. SETTING: Cardiac surgery ICUs in Pennsylvania. PATIENTS: Patients having coronary artery bypass grafting and/or cardiac valve repair or replacement from 2009 to 2011. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 57 cardiac surgical ICUs in Pennsylvania, 43 (75.4%) responded to the facility survey. Rounds included respiratory therapists in 26 of 43 (60.5%) and pharmacists in 23 of 43 (53.5%). Eleven of 41 (26.8%) reported that at least 2/3 of their nurses had a bachelor's degree in nursing. Advanced practice providers were present in most of the ICUs (37/43; 86.0%) but residents (8/42; 18.6%) and fellows (7/43; 16.3%) were not. Daytime intensivists were present in 21 of 43 (48.8%) responding ICUs; eight of 43 (18.6%) had nighttime intensivists. Among 29,449 patients, there was no relationship between mortality and nurse ICU experience, presence of any intensivist, or absence of residents after risk adjustment. To exclude patients who may have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement, we conducted a subgroup analysis of patients undergoing only coronary artery bypass grafting, and results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Pennsylvania cardiac surgery ICUs have variable structures, care practices, and clinician staffing, although none of these are statistically significantly associated with mortality in the 30 days following surgery after adjustment.

Handoffs and transitions in critical care (HATRICC): protocol for a mixed methods study of operating room to intensive care unit handoffs.

BACKGROUND: Operating room to intensive care unit handoffs are high-risk events for critically ill patients. Studies in selected patient populations show that standardizing operating room to intensive care unit handoffs improves information exchange and decreases errors. To adapt these findings to mixed surgical populations, we propose to study the implementation of a standardized operating room to intensive care unit handoff process in two intensive care units currently without an existing standard process. METHODS/DESIGN: The Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) study is a hybrid effectiveness- implementation trial of operating room to intensive care unit handoffs. We will use mixed methods to conduct a needs assessment of the current handoff process, adapt published handoff processes, and implement a new standardized handoff process in two academic intensive care units. Needs assessment: We will use non-participant observation to observe the current handoff process. Focus groups, interviews, and surveys of clinicians will elicit participants' impressions about the current process. Adaptation and implementation: We will adapt published standardized handoff processes using the needs assessment findings. We will use small group simulation to test the new process' feasibility. After simulation, we will incorporate the new handoff process into the clinical work of all providers in the study units. EVALUATION: Using the same methods employed in the needs assessment phase, we will evaluate use of the new handoff process. DATA ANALYSIS: The primary effectiveness outcome is the number of information omissions per handoff episode as compared to the pre-intervention period. Additional intervention outcomes include patient intensive care unit length of stay and intensive care unit mortality. The primary implementation outcome is acceptability of the new process. Additional implementation outcomes include feasibility, fidelity and sustainability. DISCUSSION: The HATRICC study will examine the effectiveness and implementation of a standardized operating room to intensive care unit handoff process. Findings from this study have the potential to improve healthcare communication and outcomes for critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02267174. Date of registration October 16, 2014.

Are attendings different?. Intensivists explain their handoff ideals, perceptions, and practices.

PURPOSE: What is known about physician handoffs is almost entirely limited to resident practice, but attending physicians ultimately determine care plans and goals of care. This study sought to understand what is unique about attending intensivist handoffs, to identify perceptions of the ideal content and format of intensive care unit (ICU) attending handoffs, and to understand how ideal and reported practices are aligned in the delivery of care. METHODS: Intensivists in active practice in U.S. adult academic ICUs were purposively sampled and interviewed over 9 months in 2011 to 2012. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty attendings from 15 institutions in nine U.S. states were interviewed. Subjects' specialties included anesthesiology, emergency medicine, internal medicine, and surgery. The "perfect handoff" was described as succinct, included verbal plus written communication, and took place in person. Respondents believed that the attending handoff should be less detailed than resident handoffs. Most attendings participated in handoffs at the end of each ICU rotation (n = 26). Standardized handoff practice was rare (n = 1). Media used for handoffs included combinations of telephone conversations (n = 25), in-person communications (n = 11), e-mail (n = 9), or text message (n = 2). Handoff duration varied from 10 to 120 minutes for 5 to 42 patients. Five of 30 respondents had undergone formal training in how to conduct handoffs. CONCLUSIONS: A national sample of academic intensivists identified common ideal attributes of attending handoffs, yet their reported handoff practices varied widely. Ideal handoff practices may form the basis of future interventions to improve communication between intensivists.