Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders' conference.

BACKGROUND: Millions of patients are discharged from intensive care units annually. These intensive care survivors and their families frequently report a wide range of impairments in their health status which may last for months and years after hospital discharge. OBJECTIVES: To report on a 2-day Society of Critical Care Medicine conference aimed at improving the long-term outcomes after critical illness for patients and their families. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one invited stakeholders participated in the conference. Stakeholders represented key professional organizations and groups, predominantly from North America, which are involved in the care of intensive care survivors after hospital discharge. DESIGN: Invited experts and Society of Critical Care Medicine members presented a summary of existing data regarding the potential long-term physical, cognitive and mental health problems after intensive care and the results from studies of postintensive care unit interventions to address these problems. Stakeholders provided reactions, perspectives, concerns and strategies aimed at improving care and mitigating these long-term health problems. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three major themes emerged from the conference regarding: (1) raising awareness and education, (2) understanding and addressing barriers to practice, and (3) identifying research gaps and resources. Postintensive care syndrome was agreed upon as the recommended term to describe new or worsening problems in physical, cognitive, or mental health status arising after a critical illness and persisting beyond acute care hospitalization. The term could be applied to either a survivor or family member. CONCLUSIONS: Improving care for intensive care survivors and their families requires collaboration between practitioners and researchers in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. Strategies were developed to address the major themes arising from the conference to improve outcomes for survivors and families.

Investigating pain in heart failure patients: the pain assessment, incidence, and nature in heart failure (PAIN-HF) study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced heart failure (HF) have high rates of pain and other symptoms that diminish quality of life. We know little about the characteristics and correlates of pain in patients with advanced HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified pain prevalence, location, character, severity, frequency, and correlates in 347 outpatients with advanced HF enrolled from hospices and clinics. We evaluated the correlation of pain with HF-related quality of life, mortality, symptoms and health problems, and current treatments for pain. Pain at any site was reported by 293 patients (84.4%), and 138 (39.5%) reported pain at more than one site. The most common site of pain was the legs below the knees (32.3% of subjects). Pain interfered with activity for 70% of patients. Pain was "severe" or "very severe" for 28.6% of subjects with chest pain, and for 38.9% of those with other sites of pain. The only medication reported to provide pain relief was opioids, prescribed for 34.1% of subjects (P = .001). The strongest predictors of pain were degenerative joint disease (DJD) (odds ratio [OR] 14.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-56.0; P < .001), other arthritis (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.20-6.62; P = .017), shortness of breath (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.47-7.28; P = .004), and angina pectoris (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.30-8.81; P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Pain occurred at multiple sites in patients with advanced HF. Pain correlated with DJD or other arthritis, shortness of breath, and angina. Only opioid analgesics provided relief of pain. Future research should evaluate the etiology of and interventions to manage pain in patients with HF.

Investigating pain in heart failure patients: rationale and design of the Pain Assessment, Incidence & Nature in Heart Failure (PAIN-HF) study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is increasing in prevalence. Treatments for heart failure permit a growing number of persons to live with the illness for many years. The burden of symptoms in persons with advanced heart failure is high. Fatigue, limited exertion, dyspnea, and depression are commonly associated with heart failure, but pain is common as well. METHODS AND RESULTS: Although it is known that underlying comorbidities modify the response to and experience of pain, the interaction between pain and the clinical syndrome of heart failure has not been studied to date. The Pain Assessment, Incidence & Nature in Heart Failure (PAIN-HF) study will evaluate pain in patients with advanced heart failure. Specifically, PAIN-HF will examine the anatomical location of pain, prevalence of pain, its association with aspects of patients' heart failure and comorbid conditions, and its relation to interventions and medications to treat pain. CONCLUSIONS: This study to identify the nature, incidence, and character of pain is an important step in relieving distress and discomfort in persons with heart failure.

Five things physicians and patients should question in hospice and palliative medicine.

Overuse or misuse of tests and treatments exposes patients to potential harm. The American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely® campaign is a multiyear effort to encourage physician leadership in reducing harmful or inappropriate resource utilization. Via the campaign, medical societies are asked to identify five tests or procedures commonly used in their field, the routine use of which in specific clinical scenarios should be questioned by both physicians and patients based on the evidence that the test or procedure is ineffective or even harmful. The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) was invited, and it agreed to participate in the campaign. The AAHPM Choosing Wisely Task Force, with input from the AAHPM membership, developed the following five recommendations: 1) Don't recommend percutaneous feeding tubes in patients with advanced dementia; instead, offer oral-assisted feeding; 2) Don't delay palliative care for a patient with serious illness who has physical, psychological, social, or spiritual distress because they are pursuing disease-directed treatment; 3) Don't leave an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator activated when it is inconsistent with the patient/family goals of care; 4) Don't recommend more than a single fraction of palliative radiation for an uncomplicated painful bone metastasis; and 5) Don't use topical lorazepam (Ativan®), diphenhydramine (Benadryl®), and haloperidol (Haldol®) (ABH) gel for nausea. These recommendations and their supporting rationale should be considered by physicians, patients, and their caregivers as they collaborate in choosing those treatments that do the most good and avoid the most harm for those living with serious illness.

Standards of care in geriatric practice.

We propose a set of standards to aid the physician in the care of older patients. These standards are based on the practical experiences of our own group and of others with years of clinical practice in geriatric medicine. The standards also reflect the guidelines, position papers, and deliberations of various organizations concerned with the care of older people. This article does not discuss specific illnesses or the common geriatric syndromes. The proposed standards cover comprehensive care and assessment, especially of vulnerable elders and prevention of disease and disability. We also propose standards for facilitation of care across the health service continuum, care of the nursing home resident, and palliative and hospice care.