The 3 Wishes Program Improves Families' Experience of Emotional and Spiritual Support at the End of Life.

BACKGROUND: The end-of-life (EOL) experience in the intensive care unit (ICU) is emotionally challenging, and there are opportunities for improvement. The 3 Wishes Program (3WP) promotes the dignity of dying patients and their families by eliciting and implementing wishes at the EOL. AIM: To assess whether the 3WP is associated with improved ratings of EOL care. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: In the 3WP, clinicians elicit and fulfill simple wishes for dying patients and their families. SETTING: 2-hospital academic healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Dying patients in the ICU and their families. PROGRAM EVALUATION: A modified Bereaved Family Survey (BFS), a validated tool for measuring EOL care quality, was completed by families of ICU decedents approximately 3 months after death. We compared patients whose care involved the 3WP to those who did not using three BFS-derived measures: Respectful Care and Communication (5 questions), Emotional and Spiritual Support (3 questions), and the BFS-Performance Measure (BFS-PM, a single-item global measure of care). RESULTS: Of 314 completed surveys, 117 were for patients whose care included the 3WP. Bereaved families of 3WP patients rated the Emotional and Spiritual Support factor significantly higher (7.5 vs. 6.0, p = 0.003, adjusted p = 0.001) than those who did not receive the 3WP. The Respectful Care and Communication factor and BFS-PM were no different between groups. DISCUSSION: The 3WP is a low-cost intervention that may be a feasible strategy for improving the EOL experience.

Enhancing end of life care on general internal medical wards: the 3 Wishes Project.

BACKGROUND: Initially developed in the intensive care unit (ICU) at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (SJHH) the 3 Wishes Project (3WP) provides personalized, compassionate care to dying patients and their families. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate 3WP expansion strategies for patients cared for on General Internal Medicine (GIM) wards in our hospital. METHODS: From January 2020-November 2021, we developed a phased, multicomponent approach for program expansion. We enrolled patients on the GIM wards who had a high probability of dying in hospital, then elicited, implemented, and documented wishes for them or their families. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: From March 2020 to November 2020, we implemented staff education and engagement activities, created an Expansion Coordinator position, held strategic consultations, and offered enabling resources. From March 2020 to November 2021, we enrolled 62 patients and elicited 281 wishes (median [1st, 3rd quartiles] 4 [4, 5] wishes/patient). The most common wish categories were personalizing the environment (67 wishes, 24%), rituals and spiritual support (42 wishes, 15%), and facilitating connections (39 wishes, 14%). The median [1st, 3rd] cost/patient was $0 [0, $10.00] (range $0 to $86); 91% of wishes incurred no cost to the program. CONCLUSIONS: The formal expansion of the 3WP on GIM wards has been successful despite COVID-19 pandemic disruptions. While there is still work ahead, these data suggest that implementing the 3WP on the GIM wards is feasible and affordable. Increased engagement of the clinical team during the pandemic suggests that it is positively received.

Survival After Severe COVID-19: Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the long-term sequelae of severe COVID-19 remains limited, particularly in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term outcomes of patients who required intensive care unit (ICU) admission for severe COVID-19. DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND MAIN MEASURES: This is a prospective cohort study of patients who had severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU admission in a two-hospital academic health system in Southern California. Patients discharged alive between 3/21/2020 and 12/31/2020 were surveyed approximately 6 months after discharge to assess health-related quality of life using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29 v2.1, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and loneliness scales. A preference-based health utility score (PROPr) was estimated using 7 PROMIS domain scores. Patients were also asked their attitude about receiving aggressive ICU care. KEY RESULTS: Of 275 patients admitted to the ICU for severe COVID-19, 205 (74.5%) were discharged alive and 132 (64%, median age 59, 46% female) completed surveys a median of 182 days post-discharge. Anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, ability to participate in social activities, pain interference, and cognitive function were not significantly different from the U.S. general population, but physical function (44.2, SD 11.0) was worse. PROPr mean score of 0.46 (SD 0.30, range -0.02 to 0.96 [<0 is worse than dead and 1 represents perfect health]) was slightly lower than the U.S. general population, with an even distribution across the continuum. Poor PROPr was associated with chronic medical conditions and receipt of life-sustaining treatments, but not demographics or social vulnerability. PTSD was suspected in 20% and loneliness in 29% of patients. Ninety-eight percent of patients were glad they received life-saving treatment. CONCLUSION: Most patients who survive severe COVID-19 achieve positive outcomes, with health scores similar to the general population at 6 months post-discharge. However, there is marked heterogeneity in outcomes with a substantial minority reporting severely compromised health.

Organ Donation at the End of Life: Experiences From the 3 Wishes Project.

PURPOSE: The 3 Wishes Project (3WP) promotes holistic end-of-life care in the intensive care unit (ICU) to honor dying patients, support families, and encourage clinician compassion. Organ donation is a wish that is sometimes made by, or on behalf of, critically ill patients. Our objective was to describe the interface between the 3WP and organ donation as experienced by families, clinicians, and organ donation coordinators. METHODS: In a multicenter evaluation of the 3WP in 4 Canadian ICUs, we conducted a thematic analysis of transcripts from interviews and focus groups with clinicians, organ donation coordinators, and families of dying or died patients for whom donation was considered. RESULTS: We analyzed transcripts from 26 interviews and 2 focus groups with 18 family members, 17 clinicians, and 6 organ donation coordinators. The central theme describes the mutual goals of the 3WP and organ donation-emphasizing personhood and agency across the temporal continuum of care. During family decision-making, conversations encouraged by the 3WP can facilitate preliminary discussions about donation. During preparation for donation, memory-making activities supported by the 3WP redirect focus toward personhood. During postmortem family care, the 3WP supports families, including when donation is unsuccessful, and highlights aspirational pursuits of donation while encouraging reflections on other fulfilled wishes. CONCLUSIONS: Organ donation and the 3WP provide complementary opportunities to engage in value-based conversations during the dying process. The shared values of these programs may help to incorporate organ donation and death into a person's life narrative and incorporate new life into a person's death narrative.

Compassionate End-of-Life Care: Mixed-Methods Multisite Evaluation of the 3 Wishes Project.

Background: The 3 Wishes Project (3WP) is an end-of-life program that aims to honor the dignity of dying patients by creating meaningful patient- and family-centered memories while promoting humanistic interprofessional care. Objective: To determine whether this palliative intervention could be successfully implemented-defined as demonstrating value, transferability, affordability, and sustainability-beyond the intensive care unit in which it was created. Design: Mixed-methods formative program evaluation. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04147169). Setting: 4 North American intensive care units. Participants: Dying patients, their families, clinicians, hospital managers, and administrators. Intervention: Wishes from dying patients, family members, and clinicians were elicited and implemented. Measurements: Patient characteristics and processes of care; the number, type, and cost of each wish; and semistructured interviews and focus groups with family members, clinicians, and managers. Results: A total of 730 patients were enrolled, and 3407 wishes were elicited. Qualitative data were gathered from 75 family members, 72 clinicians, and 20 managers or hospital administrators. Value included intentional comforting of families as they honored the lives and legacies of their loved ones while inspiring compassionate clinical care. Factors promoting transferability included family appreciation and a collaborative intensive care unit culture committed to dignity-conserving end-of-life care. Staff participation evolved from passive support to professional agency. Program initiation required minimal investment for reusable materials; thereafter, the mean cost was $5.19 (SD, $17.14) per wish. Sustainability was demonstrated by the continuation of 3WP at each site after study completion. Limitation: This descriptive formative evaluation describes tertiary care center-specific experiences rather than aiming for generalizability to all jurisdictions. Conclusion: The 3WP is a transferrable, affordable, and sustainable program that provides value to dying patients, their families, clinicians, and institutions. Primary Funding Source: Greenwall Foundation.

Building organizational compassion among teams delivering end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: The 3 Wishes Project.

BACKGROUND: The 3 Wishes Project is a semistructured program that improves the quality of care for patients dying in the intensive care unit by eliciting and implementing wishes. This simple intervention honors the legacy of patients and eases family grief, forging human connections between family members and clinicians. AIM: To examine how the 3 Wishes Project enables collective patterns of compassion between patients, families, clinicians, and managerial leaders in the intensive care unit. DESIGN: Using a qualitative descriptive approach, interviews and focus groups were used to collect data from family members of dying patients, clinicians, and institutional leaders. Unconstrained directed qualitative content analysis was performed using Organizational Compassion as the analytic framework. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Four North American intensive care units, participants were 74 family members of dying patients, 72 frontline clinicians, and 20 managerial leaders. RESULTS: The policies and processes of the 3 Wishes Project exemplify organizational compassion by supporting individuals in the intensive care unit to collectively notice, feel, and respond to suffering. As an intervention that enables and empowers clinicians to engage in acts of kindness to enhance end-of-life care, the 3 Wishes Project is particularly well situated to encourage collective responses to suffering and promote compassion between patients, family members, and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Examining the 3 Wishes Project through the lens of organizational compassion reveals the potential of this program to cultivate the capacity for people to collectively notice, feel, and respond to suffering. Our data document multidirectional demonstrations of compassion between clinicians and family members, forging the type of human connections that may foster resilience.

Expanding the 3 Wishes Project for compassionate end-of-life care: a qualitative evaluation of local adaptations.

BACKGROUND: The 3 Wishes Project (3WP) is an end-of-life program that honors the dignity of dying patients by fostering meaningful connections among patients, families, and clinicians. Since 2013, it has become embedded in the culture of end-of-life care in over 20 ICUs across North America. The purpose of the current study is to describe the variation in implementation of 3WP across sites, in order to ascertain which factors facilitated multicenter implementation, which factors remain consistent across sites, and which may be adapted to suit local needs. METHODS: Using the methodology of qualitative description, we collected interview and focus group data from 85 clinicians who participated in the successful initiation and sustainment of 3WP in 9 ICUs. We describe the transition between different models of 3WP implementation, from core clinical program to the incorporation of various research activities. We describe various sources of financial and in-kind resources accessed to support the program. RESULTS: Beyond sharing a common goal of improving end-of-life care, sites varied considerably in organizational context, staff complement, and resources. Despite these differences, the program was successfully implemented at each site and eventually evolved from a clinical or research intervention to a general approach to end-of-life care. Key to this success was flexibility and the empowerment of frontline staff to tailor the program to address identified needs with available resources. This adaptability was fueled by cross-pollination of ideas within and outside of each site, resulting in the establishment of a network of like-minded individuals with a shared purpose. CONCLUSIONS: The successful initiation and sustainment of 3WP relied on local adaptations to suit organizational needs and resources. The semi-structured nature of the program facilitated these adaptations, encouraged creative and important ways of relating within local clinical cultures, and reinforced the main tenet of the program: meaningful human connection at the end of life. Local adaptations also encouraged a team approach to care, supplementing the typical patient-clinician dyad by explicitly empowering the healthcare team to collectively recognize and respond to the needs of dying patients, families, and each other. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04147169 , retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov on October 31, 2019.

Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). OBJECTIVES: To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. METHODS: In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517-0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545-0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055-0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores. CONCLUSIONS: The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback.

A plasmapheresis protocol for refractory pulmonary alveolar proteinosis.

Pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (PAP) is a rare lung disease characterized by the accumulation of proteinaceous material within the lungs. While typically managed with whole lung lavage (WLL), more recent PAP therapies aimed at reducing granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor autoantibodies (anti-GM-CSF) have reduced symptoms and improved lung function. We present a patient with PAP refractory to WLL, exogenous GM-CSF and rituximab who underwent a novel plasmapheresis protocol as a therapeutic trial. While previously reported regimens have utilized plasmapheresis sessions distributed over months, our patient underwent five consecutive days of plasmapheresis, followed by rituximab. Anti-GM-CSF levels decreased from 24.8 to 2.7 mcg/mL post-plasmapheresis. This reduction of autoantibody correlated with reduction in WLL frequency, increase in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, and subjective improvement in dyspnea. Our case suggests that five consecutive days of plasmapharesis results in increased clearance of anti-GM-CSF and may be potentially efficacious in cases of refractory PAP.

Differences in code status practice patterns among emergency clinicians working in Japan and the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine self-reported code-status practice patterns among emergency clinicians from Japan and the U.S. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to emergency clinicians from one academic medical center and four general hospitals in Japan and two academic medical centers in the U.S. The questionnaire was based on a hypothetical case involving a critically ill patient with end-stage lung cancer. The questionnaire items assessed whether respondent clinicians would be likely to pose questions to patients about their preferences for medical procedures and their values and goals. RESULTS: A total of 176 emergency clinicians from Japan and the U.S participated. After adjusting for participants' backgrounds, emergency clinicians in Japan were less likely to pose procedure-based questions than those in the U.S. Conversely, emergency clinicians in Japan showed a statistically higher likelihood of asking 10 out of 12 value-based questions. CONCLUSION: Significant differences were found between emergency clinicians in Japan and the U.S. in their reported practices on posing procedure-based and patient value-based questions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Serious illness communication training based in the U.S. must be adapted to the Japanese context, considering the cultural characteristics and practical responsibilities of Japanese emergency clinicians.

The differences in code status conversation approaches reported by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: During acute health deterioration, emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians routinely discuss code status (e.g., shared decision making about mechanical ventilation) with seriously ill patients. Little is known about their approaches. We sought to elucidate how code status conversations are conducted by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians and why their approaches are different. METHODS: We conducted a sequential-explanatory, mixed-method study in three large academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. Attending physicians and advanced practice providers working in emergency medicine and palliative care were eligible. Among the survey respondents, we purposefully sampled the participants for follow-up interviews. We collected clinicians' self-reported approaches in code status conversations and their rationales. A survey with a 5-point Likert scale ("very unlikely" to "very likely") was used to assess the likelihood of asking about medical procedures (procedure based) and patients' values (value based) during code status conversations, followed by semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Among 272 clinicians approached, 206 completed the survey (a 76% response rate). The reported approaches differed greatly (e.g., 91% of palliative care clinicians reported asking about a patient's acceptable quality of life compared to 59% of emergency medicine clinicians). Of the 206 respondents, 118 (57%) agreed to subsequent interviews; our final number of semistructured interviews included seven emergency medicine clinicians and nine palliative care clinicians. The palliative care clinicians stated that the value-based questions offer insight into patients' goals, which is necessary for formulating a recommendation. In contrast, emergency medicine clinicians stated that while value-based questions are useful, they are vague and necessitate extended discussions, which are inappropriate during emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians reported conducting code status conversations differently. The rationales may be shaped by their clinical practices and experiences.

Defining the Time-limited Trial for Patients with Critical Illness: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

In critical care, the specific, structured approach to patient care known as a "time-limited trial" has been promoted in the literature to help patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians navigate consequential decisions about life-sustaining therapy in the face of uncertainty. Despite promotion of the time-limited trial approach, a lack of consensus about its definition and essential elements prevents optimal clinical use and rigorous evaluation of its impact. The objectives of this American Thoracic Society Workshop Committee were to establish a consensus definition of a time-limited trial in critical care, identify the essential elements for conducting a time-limited trial, and prioritize directions for future work. We achieved these objectives through a structured search of the literature, a modified Delphi process with 100 interdisciplinary and interprofessional stakeholders, and iterative committee discussions. We conclude that a time-limited trial for patients with critical illness is a collaborative plan among clinicians and a patient and/or their surrogate decision makers to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined duration, after which the patient's response to therapy informs the decision to continue care directed toward recovery, transition to care focused exclusively on comfort, or extend the trial's duration. The plan's 16 essential elements follow four sequential phases: consider, plan, support, and reassess. We acknowledge considerable gaps in evidence about the impact of time-limited trials and highlight a concern that if inadequately implemented, time-limited trials may perpetuate unintended harm. Future work is needed to better implement this defined, specific approach to care in practice through a person-centered equity lens and to evaluate its impact on patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

Sacrifice and solidarity: a qualitative study of family experiences of death and bereavement in critical care settings during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Pandemic-related restrictions are expected to continue to shape end-of-life care and impact the experiences of dying hospitalised patients and their families. OBJECTIVE: To understand families' experiences of loss and bereavement during and after the death of their loved one amidst the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Three acute care units in a Canadian tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Family members of 28 hospitalised patients who died from March-July 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative semistructured interviews conducted 6-16 months after patient death inquired about family experiences before and beyond the death of their loved one and garnered suggestions to improve end-of-life care. RESULTS: Pandemic restrictions had consequences for families of dying hospitalised patients. Most family members described an attitude of acquiescence, some framing their experience as a sacrifice made for the public good. Families appreciated how clinicians engendered trust in the name of social solidarity while trying to mitigate the negative impact of family separation. However, fears about the patient's experience of isolation and changes to postmortem rituals also created despair and contributed to long-lasting grief. CONCLUSION: Profound loss and enduring grief were described by family members whose final connections to their loved one were constrained by pandemic circumstances. Families observed solidarity among clinical staff and experienced a sense of unity with staff, which alleviated some distress. Their suggestions to improve end-of-life care given pandemic restrictions included frequent, flexible communication, exceptions for family presence when safe, and targeted efforts to connect patients whose isolation is intensified by functional impairment or limited technological access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04602520; Results.

Seriously Ill Patients' Prioritized Goals and Their Clinicians' Perceptions of Those Goals.

CONTEXT: Seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goals are understood by their clinicians are likely better positioned to receive goal-concordant care. OBJECTIVES: To examine the proportion of seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goal is accurately perceived by their clinician and identify factors associated with accurate perception. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness and their clinicians. Approximately two weeks after a clinic visit, patients reported their current prioritized healthcare goal- extending life over relief of pain and discomfort, or relief of pain and discomfort over extending life - and clinicians reported their perception of their patients' current prioritized healthcare goal; matching these items defined accurate perception. RESULTS: Of 252 patients with a prioritized healthcare goal, 60% had their goal accurately perceived by their clinician, 27% were cared for by clinicians who perceived prioritization of the alternative goal, and 13% had their clinician answer unsure. Patients who were older (OR 1.03 per year; 95%CI 1.01, 1.05), had stable goals (OR 2.52; 95%CI 1.26, 5.05), and had a recent goals-of-care discussion (OR 1.78, 95%CI 1.00, 3.16) were more likely to have their goals accurately perceived. CONCLUSION: A majority of seriously ill outpatients are cared for by clinicians who accurately perceive their patients' prioritized healthcare goals. However, a substantial portion are not and may be at higher risk for goal-discordant care. Interventions that facilitate goals-of-care discussions may help align care with goals, as recent discussions were associated with accurate perceptions of patients' prioritized goals.

Rapid Mortality Review in the Intensive Care Unit: An In-Person, Multidisciplinary Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Significant resources have been allocated to decreasing the number of preventable deaths in hospitals, but identifying preventable factors and then leveraging them to effect system-wide change remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of a novel in-person, multidisciplinary "rapid mortality review" process to identify deaths that are preventable and action items that lead to improvements in care. METHODS: Rapid mortality review sessions were conducted weekly for patients who died in the medical intensive care unit. Patient data and clinician opinions regarding preventable deaths were discussed and recorded. Bivariate analyses were done to detect associations between case variables and the formation of an action item. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2018, 542 patient deaths were reviewed; of those, 36 deaths (7%) were deemed potentially preventable. Facilitators identified issues in 294 cases (54%). A total of 253 action items were identified for 175 cases (32%); 60% of those action items were subsequently completed and led to tangible systemic change in 29 instances (11%). Action items were more likely to be identified for patients who had not been receiving comfort care (P < .001), for patients who had received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P < .001), when the treatment team (P < .001) or the rapid mortality review facilitator (P < .001) had care-related concerns, and when the patient's death had been preventable (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Even in settings with low reported rates of preventable deaths, an in-person multidisciplinary mortality review can successfully identify areas where care can be improved, leading to systemic change.

End-of-life transitions for family member on the solid tumour oncology ward: the 3 Wishes Project.

OBJECTIVES: Although death is not uncommon for hospitalised patients with cancer, there are few interventions in oncology that are designed to create a dignified, compassionate end-of-life (EOL) experience for patients and families. The 3 Wishes Project (3WP), a programme in which clinicians elicit and implement final wishes for dying patients, has been shown effective in intensive care units (ICUs) at improving the EOL experience. The objective was to initiate 3WP on an oncology ward and evaluate its effect on family member experiences of their loved one's EOL. We hypothesised that the 3WP can be implemented in the non-ICU setting and help oncological patients and their families with transition to the EOL. METHODS: When the patient's probability of dying is greater than 95%, patients and families were invited to participate in the 3WP. Wishes were elicited, implemented and categorised. Audiorecorded, semistructured interviews were conducted with family members, transcribed and analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: 175 wishes were implemented for 52 patients with cancer (average cost of US$34). The most common wish (66%) was to personalise the environment. Qualitative analysis of 11 family member interviews revealed that the 3WP facilitates three transitions at the EOL: (1) the transition from multiple admissions to the final admission, (2) the transition of a predominantly caregiver role to a family member role and (3) the transition from a focus on the present to a focus on legacy. CONCLUSION: The 3WP can be implemented on the oncology ward and enhance the EOL experience for hospitalised patients with cancer.

Evaluation of Time-Limited Trials Among Critically Ill Patients With Advanced Medical Illnesses and Reduction of Nonbeneficial ICU Treatments.

Importance: For critically ill patients with advanced medical illnesses and poor prognoses, overuse of invasive intensive care unit (ICU) treatments may prolong suffering without benefit. Objective: To examine whether use of time-limited trials (TLTs) as the default care-planning approach for critically ill patients with advanced medical illnesses was associated with decreased duration and intensity of nonbeneficial ICU care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective quality improvement study was conducted from June 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, at the medical ICUs of 3 academic public hospitals in California. Patients at risk for nonbeneficial ICU treatments due to advanced medical illnesses were identified using categories from the Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines for admission and triage. Interventions: Clinicians were trained to use TLTs as the default communication and care-planning approach in meetings with family and surrogate decision makers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of family meetings (process measure) and ICU length of stay (clinical outcome measure). Results: A total of 209 patients were included (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [16.3] years; 127 men [60.8%]; 101 Hispanic patients [48.3%]), with 113 patients (54.1%) in the preintervention period and 96 patients (45.9%) in the postintervention period. Formal family meetings increased from 68 of 113 (60.2%) to 92 of 96 (95.8%) patients between the preintervention and postintervention periods (P < .01). Key components of family meetings, such as discussions of risks and benefits of ICU treatments (preintervention, 15 [34.9%] vs postintervention, 56 [94.9%]; P < .01), eliciting values and preferences of patients (20 [46.5%] vs 58 [98.3%]; P < .01), and identifying clinical markers of improvement (9 [20.9%] vs 52 [88.1%]; P < .01), were discussed more frequently after intervention. Median ICU length of stay was significantly reduced between preintervention and postintervention periods (8.7 [interquartile range (IQR), 5.7-18.3] days vs 7.4 [IQR, 5.2-11.5] days; P = .02). Hospital mortality was similar between the preintervention and postintervention periods (66 of 113 [58.4%] vs 56 of 96 [58.3%], respectively; P = .99). Invasive ICU procedures were used less frequently in the postintervention period (eg, mechanical ventilation preintervention, 97 [85.8%] vs postintervention, 70 [72.9%]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a quality improvement intervention that trained physicians to communicate and plan ICU care with family members of critically ill patients in the ICU using TLTs was associated with improved quality of family meetings and a reduced intensity and duration of ICU treatments. This study highlights a patient-centered approach for treating critically ill patients that may reduce nonbeneficial ICU care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04181294.

End-of-Life Care During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: The 3 Wishes Program.

Patient- and family-centered end-of-life care can be difficult to achieve in light of visitation restrictions and infection-prevention measures. We evaluated how the 3 Wishes Program evolved to allow continued provision of compassionate end-of-life care for critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN: This is a prospective observational study where data were collected 1 year prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and 1 year after (from March 1, 2019, to March 31, 2021). The number of deceased patients whose care involved the 3 Wishes Program, their characteristics, and wishes were compared between prepandemic and pandemic periods. SETTING: Six adult ICUs of a two-hospital health system in Los Angeles. PATIENTS: Deceased patients whose care involved the 3 Wishes Program. INTERVENTIONS: The 3 Wishes Program is a palliative care intervention in which individualized wishes are implemented for dying patients and their families. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, the end-of-life care for 523 patients involved the 3 Wishes Program; more patients received the 3 Wishes Program as part of their end-of-life care during the pandemic period than during the prepandemic study period (24.8 vs 17.6 patients/mo; p = 0.044). Patients who died during the pandemic compared with prepandemic were less likely to have family at the bedside and more likely to have postmortem wishes fulfilled for their families. Compared with the 736 wishes implemented during the prepandemic period, the 969 wishes completed during the pandemic were more likely to involve keepsakes. Wishes were most commonly implemented by bedside nurses, although the 3 Wishes Program project manager (not involved in the patient's clinical care) was more likely to assist remotely during the pandemic (24.8% vs 12.1%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bedside innovations, programmatic adaptations, and institutional support made it possible for healthcare workers to continue the 3 Wishes Program and provide compassionate end-of-life care in the ICU during this pandemic.

The Community Perspective on Potentially Inappropriate Treatment.

Rationale: Medical interventions that prolong life without achieving an effect that the patient can appreciate as a benefit are often considered futile or inappropriate by healthcare providers. In recent years, a multicenter guideline has been released with recommendations on how to resolve conflicts between families and clinicians in these situations and to increase public engagement. Although laypeople are acknowledged as important stakeholders, their perceptions and understanding of the terms "potentially inappropriate" or "futile" treatment have received little formal evaluation.Objectives: To evaluate the community perspective about the meaning of futile treatment.Methods: Six focus groups (two groups each of ages <65, 65-75, and >75 yr) were convened to explore what constitutes futile treatment and who should decide in situations of conflict between doctors and families. Focus group discussions were analyzed using grounded theory.Results: There were 39 participants aged 18 or older with at least one previous hospitalization (personal or by immediate relative). When asked to describe futile or inappropriate treatment, community members found the concept difficult to understand and the terminology inadequate, though when presented with a case describing inappropriate treatment, most participants recognized it as the provision of inappropriate treatment. Several themes emerged regarding participant difficulty with the concept, including inadequate physician-patient communication, lack of public emphasis on end-of-life issues, skepticism that medical treatment can be completely inappropriate, and doubts and fears that medical futility could undermine patient and/or family autonomy. Participants also firmly believed that in situations of conflict families should be the ultimate decision-makers.Conclusions: Public engagement in policy development and discourse around medical futility will first require intense education to familiarize the lay public about use of inappropriate treatment at the end of life.

Change in inappropriate critical care over time.

PURPOSE: Intensive care interventions that prolong life without achieving meaningful benefit are considered clinically "inappropriate". In 2012, the frequency of perceived-inappropriate critical care was 10.8% at one academic health system; and we aimed to re-evaluate this frequency. METHODS: For 4 months in 2017, we surveyed critical care physicians daily and asked whether each patient was receiving appropriate, probably inappropriate, or inappropriate critical care. Patients were categorized into three groups: 1) patients for whom treatment was never inappropriate, 2) patients with at least one assessment that treatment was probably inappropriate, but no inappropriate treatment assessments, and 3) patients who had at least one assessment of inappropriate treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-five physicians made 10,105 assessments on 1424 patients. Of these, 94 (6.6%) patients received at least one assessment of inappropriate critical care, which is lower than 2012 (10.8% (p < 0.01)). Comparing 2017 and 2012, patient age, MS-DRG, length of stay, and hospital mortality were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Inpatient mortality in 2017 was 73% for patients receiving inappropriate critical care. CONCLUSIONS: Over five years the proportion of patients perceived to be receiving inappropriate critical care dropped by 40%. Understanding the reasons for such change might elucidate how to continue to reduce inappropriate critical care.