"Gives peace of mind" - Relatives' perspectives of end-of-life conversations.

OBJECTIVES: Planning for end-of-life (EOL) and future treatment and care through advance care planning (ACP) is being increasingly implemented in different healthcare settings, and interest in ACP is growing. Several studies have emphasized the importance of relatives participating in conversations about wishes for EOL and being included in the process. Likewise, research has highlighted how relatives can be a valuable resource in an emergency setting. Although relatives have a significant role, few studies have investigated their perspectives of ACP and EOL conversations. This study explores relatives' experiences of the benefits and disadvantages of having conversations about wishes for EOL treatment. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were held with 29 relatives who had participated in a conversation about EOL wishes with a patient and physician 2 years prior in a variety of Danish healthcare settings. The relatives were interviewed between September 2020 and June 2022. Content analysis was performed on the qualitative data. RESULTS: The interviews revealed two themes: "gives peace of mind" and "enables more openness and common understanding of EOL." Relatives found that conversations about EOL could help assure that patients were heard and enhance their autonomy. These conversations relieved the relatives of responsibility by clarifying or confirming the patients' wishes, and they also made the relatives reflect on their own wishes for EOL. Moreover, they helped patients and relatives address other issues regarding EOL and made wishes more visible across settings. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The results indicate that conducting conversations about wishes for EOL treatment and having relatives participate in those conversations were perceived as beneficial for both relatives and patients. Involving relatives in ACP should be prioritized by physicians and healthcare personnel when holding conversations about EOL.

Non-sedation-Does it improve health-related quality of life after critical illness? A 3-month follow-up sub-study of the NONSEDA trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is associated with severely impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for years following discharge. The NONSEDA trial was a multicenter randomized trial on non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients in Scandinavia. The aim of this sub-study was to assess the effect of non-sedation on HRQoL and degree of independence in activities in daily living (ADL) 3 months post-ICU. METHODS: All survivors were asked to complete the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) and the Barthel Index 3 months post-ICU. To limit missing data, reminders were sent. If unsuccessful, telephone interviews could be used. Outcomes were the level of HRQoL and ADL-function in each group. All outcomes were assessed blinded. RESULTS: Of the 700 patients included 412 survived to follow-up. A total of 344 survivors participated (82%). Baseline data were equal between the two groups. Mean SF-36 scores for the non-sedated vs sedated patients were as follows: Physical Function 45 vs 40, P = .69, Bodily Pain: 61 vs 52, P = .81, General Health: 50 vs 50, P = .84, Vitality: 42 vs 44, P = .85, Social Function: 75 vs 63, P = .85, Role Emotional: 58 vs 50, P = .82, Mental Health: 70 vs 70, P = .89, Role Physical: 25 vs 28, P = .32, Physical Component Score: 38 vs 37, P = .81, Mental Component Score: 48 vs 46, P = .94, Barthel Index: 20 vs 20, P = .74. CONCLUSION: Randomization to non-sedation neither improved nor impaired health-related quality of life or degree of independence in activities in daily living 3 months post-ICU discharge.

Intubation rate, duration of noninvasive ventilation and mortality after noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA).

BACKGROUND: Asynchrony is a common problem in patients treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has shown to improve patient-ventilator interaction. However, it is unknown whether NIV-NAVA improves outcomes compared to noninvasive pressure support (NIV-PS). METHODS: This observational cohort study included patients 18 years or older receiving noninvasive ventilation using an oro-nasal face mask for more than 2 hours in a Danish ICU. The study included a NIV-NAVA cohort (year 2013-2015) and two comparison cohorts: (a) a historical NIV-PS cohort (year 2011-2012) before the implementation of NIV-NAVA at the ICU in 2013, and (b) a concurrent NIV-PS cohort (year 2013-2015). Outcomes of NIV-NAVA (intubation rate, duration of NIV and 90-day mortality) were assessed and compared using multivariable linear and logistic regression adjusted for relevant confounders. RESULTS: The study included 427 patients (91 in the NIV-NAVA, 134 in the historic NIV-PS and 202 in the concurrent NIV-PS cohort). Patients treated with NIV-NAVA did not have improved outcome after adjustment for measured confounders. Actually, there were statistically imprecise higher odds for intubation in NIV-NAVA patients compared with both the historical [OR 1.48, CI (0.74-2.97)] and the concurrent NIV-PS cohort [OR 1.67, CI (0.87-3.19)]. NIV-NAVA might also have a longer length of NIV [63%, CI (19%-125%)] and [139%, CI (80%-213%)], and might have a higher 90-day mortality [OR 1.24, CI (0.69-2.25)] and [OR 1.39, CI (0.81-2.39)]. Residual confounding cannot be excluded. CONCLUSION: This present study found no improved clinical outcomes in patients treated with NIV-NAVA compared to NIV-PS.

Effect of non-sedation on post-traumatic stress and psychological health in survivors of critical illness-A substudy of the NONSEDA randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness can cause post-traumatic stress and impaired mental health. The NONSEDA trial was a Scandinavian multicenter RCT, assessing non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. The aim of this substudy was to assess the effect of non-sedation on post-traumatic stress and mental health. METHODS: This substudy is based on all participating patients from a single NONSEDA trial site (Kolding, Denmark). Patients were randomized to sedation or non-sedation within the first 24 hours of mechanical ventilation. Three months after ICU discharge survivors were examined by a neuropsychologist for post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression, and filled out the SF-36 questionnaire regarding quality of life. RESULTS: The two groups of survivors were similar with regard to baseline characteristics, length of admission and mechanical ventilation. Sedated patients received more propofol and midazolam. Doses of morphine and haloperidole were equal. PRIMARY OUTCOME: the number of patients with post-traumatic stress disorder did not differ between groups (non-sedated: 2 patients vs sedated: 0, P = .23). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: there were no differences between groups in Beck Anxiety Index (median, non-sedated: 0 vs sedated: 0, P = .62), Beck Depression Index (median, non-sedated: 7 vs sedated: 4, P = .24), SF-36 mental component score (mean, non-sedated: 46.7 vs sedated: 47.5, P = .73) or number of patients with symptoms of post-traumatic stress (8 in both groups, P = .89). CONCLUSION: Levels of PTSD, anxiety and depression and quality of life regarding mental health were similar between the non-sedated and sedated group.

Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Recommendations From an Expert Panel.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing recognition that high-quality care for patients and families in the ICU requires exemplary interprofessional collaboration and communication. One important aspect is how the ICU team makes complex decisions. However, no recommendations have been published on interprofessional shared decision-making. The aim of this project is to use systematic review and normative analysis by experts to examine existing evidence regarding interprofessional shared decision-making, describe its principles and provide ICU clinicians with recommendations regarding its implementation. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases and used normative analyses to formulate recommendations regarding interprofessional shared decision-making. STUDY SELECTION: Three authors screened titles and abstracts in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four papers assessing the effect of interprofessional shared decision-making on quality of care were identified, suggesting that interprofessional shared decision-making is associated with improved processes and outcomes. Five recommendations, largely based on expert opinion, were developed: 1) interprofessional shared decision-making is a collaborative process among clinicians that allows for shared decisions regarding important treatment questions; 2) clinicians should consider engaging in interprofessional shared decision-making to promote the most appropriate and balanced decisions; 3) clinicians and hospitals should implement strategies to foster an ICU climate oriented toward interprofessional shared decision-making; 4) clinicians implementing interprofessional shared decision-making should consider incorporating a structured approach; and 5) further studies are needed to evaluate and improve the quality of interprofessional shared decision-making in ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider an interprofessional shared decision-making model that allows for the exchange of information, deliberation, and joint attainment of important treatment decisions.

Facilitators and Barriers for Initiating Conversations About End of Life.

Background: Conducting a conversation about wishes for treatment at end of life (EOL) has been shown to improve EOL care for patients and relatives. Still, only a minority of physicians conduct the conversation, which might lead to unwanted interventions and treatments. Objectives: The purpose of this survey was to examine which factors facilitate and hinder physicians across a wide range of health care facilities to initiate the conversation about wishes for treatment at EOL. Design: A questionnaire survey based on a Delphi-developed questionnaire. Setting/Subjects: The questionnaire was sent to both hospital physicians and general practitioners (GPs) in a Danish region. Results: More than 3000 physicians were invited to participate in the survey. Of these, 782 responded, 622 working at a hospital department, and 160 from general practice clinics. Results showed that senior physicians, GPs, and physicians working in a medical department feel best equipped to conduct the conversation. Moreover, senior physicians pointed to their experience as physicians as being of great importance for conducting the conversation, whereas junior physicians found training in conducting the conversation as an important factor. Conclusion: Our study indicates that different factors depending on the health care setting and the seniority of the physician facilitate or hinder physicians from conducting the conversation about wishes for treatment at EOL. Being aware of these differences and making a concerted effort depending on setting and seniority might help implement and conduct the conversation.

Assessment of health care by children and adolescents depends on when they respond to the questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the assessments and priorities by children and adolescents of health care in a paediatric outpatient clinic, to examine the influence of the time factor on the assessments and priorities by children and adolescents of health care, and to determine their preferred method of evaluation. DESIGN: A quasi-randomized follow-up study in which children and adolescents either completed a questionnaire at an outpatient clinic and again 3-6 weeks after the visit, or only 3-6 weeks after the visit. SETTING: A Danish paediatric outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adolescents from the outpatient clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison between assessments given at the clinic and assessments given 3-6 weeks after the visit. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-six children and adolescents completed at least one questionnaire. Children and adolescents were generally satisfied with the consultation at the paediatric outpatient clinic, but the visit was assessed less positive 3-6 weeks post-visit compared with assessments given immediately after the visit. Assessments and priorities of more general matters were not influenced by the time factor. Electronic surveys via touch screen computers were preferred to paper questionnaires by children and adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing user satisfaction from different studies and when planning a survey of user satisfaction, the interval between the rendering of the health-care service and the assessment should be taken into consideration.

Ethical climate and intention to leave among critical care clinicians: an observational study in 68 intensive care units across Europe and the United States.

PURPOSE: Apart from organizational issues, quality of inter-professional collaboration during ethical decision-making may affect the intention to leave one's job. To determine whether ethical climate is associated with the intention to leave after adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics. METHODS: Perceptions of the ethical climate among clinicians working in 68 adult ICUs in 12 European countries and the US were measured using a self-assessment questionnaire, together with job characteristics and intent to leave as a sub-analysis of the Dispropricus study. The validated ethical decision-making climate questionnaire included seven factors: not avoiding decision-making at end-of-life (EOL), mutual respect within the interdisciplinary team, open interdisciplinary reflection, ethical awareness, self-reflective physician leadership, active decision-making at end-of-life by physicians, and involvement of nurses in EOL. Hierarchical mixed effect models were used to assess associations between these factors, and the intent to leave in clinicians within ICUs, within the different countries. RESULTS: Of 3610 nurses and 1137 physicians providing ICU bedside care, 63.1% and 62.9% participated, respectively. Of 2992 participating clinicians, 782 (26.1%) had intent to leave, of which 27% nurses, 24% junior and 22.7% senior physicians. After adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics, mutual respect OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66- 0.90), open interdisciplinary reflection (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62-0.86]) and not avoiding EOL decisions (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77-0.98]) were all associated with a lower intent to leave. CONCLUSION: This is the first large multicenter study showing an independent association between clinicians' intent to leave and the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU. Interventions to reduce intent to leave may be most effective when they focus on improving mutual respect, interdisciplinary reflection and active decision-making at EOL.