Evolution of Investigating Informed Assent Discussions about CPR in Seriously Ill Patients.

CONTEXT: Outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remain poor. We have spent 10 years investigating an "informed assent" (IA) approach to discussing CPR with chronically ill patients/families. IA is a discussion framework whereby patients extremely unlikely to benefit from CPR are informed that unless they disagree, CPR will not be performed because it will not help achieve their goals, thus removing the burden of decision-making from the patient/family, while they retain an opportunity to disagree. OBJECTIVES: Determine the acceptability and efficacy of IA discussions about CPR with older chronically ill patients/families. METHODS: This multi-site research occurred in three stages. Stage I determined acceptability of the intervention through focus groups of patients with advanced COPD or malignancy, family members, and physicians. Stage II was an ambulatory pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the IA discussion. Stage III is an ongoing phase 2 RCT of IA versus attention control in in patients with advanced chronic illness. RESULTS: Our qualitative work found the IA approach was acceptable to most patients, families, and physicians. The pilot RCT demonstrated feasibility and showed an increase in participants in the intervention group changing from "full code" to "do not resuscitate" within two weeks after the intervention. However, Stages I and II found that IA is best suited to inpatients. Our phase 2 RCT in older hospitalized seriously ill patients is ongoing; results are pending. CONCLUSIONS: IA is a feasible and reasonable approach to CPR discussions in selected patient populations.

Telemedicine as a tool to provide family conferences and palliative care consultations in critically ill patients at rural health care institutions: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Many critically ill patients who transfer from rural hospitals to tertiary care centers (TCCs) have poor prognoses, and family members are unable to discuss patient prognosis and goals of care with TCC providers until after transfer. AIM: Our TCC conducted teleconferences prior to transfer to facilitate early family discussions. DESIGN/SETTING: We conducted a retrospective review of these telemedicine family conferences among critically ill patients requested for transfer which occurred from December 2008 to December 2009 at our TCC. Outcomes for each patient and detailed descriptions of the conference content were obtained. We also assessed limitations and attitudes and satisfaction with this intervention among clinicians. RESULTS: During the 12-month period, 12 telemedicine consultations were performed. Of these patients, 10 (83%) died in the 30 days following the request for transfer. After the telemedicine consultation, 8 (67%) patients were transferred to our TCC from their respective hospitals, while 4 (33%) patients continued care at their regional hospital and did not transfer. Of the patients who transferred to TCC, 7 (88% of those transferred) returned to their community after a stay at the TCC. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that palliative care consultations can be provided via telemedicine for critically ill patients and that adequate preparation and technical expertise are essential. Although this study is limited by the nature of the retrospective review, it is evident that more research is needed to further assess its applicability, utility, and acceptability.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation among mechanically ventilated patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes, including long-term survival, after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: We analyzed Medicare data from 1994 to 2005 to identify beneficiaries who underwent in-hospital CPR. We then identified a subgroup receiving CPR one or more days after mechanical ventilation was initiated [defined by ICD-9 procedure code for intubation (96.04) or mechanical ventilation (96.7x) one or more days prior to procedure code for CPR (99.60 or 99.63)]. RESULTS: We identified 471,962 patients who received in-hospital CPR with an overall survival to hospital discharge of 18.4 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 18.3-18.5 %]. Of those, 42,163 received CPR one or more days after mechanical ventilation initiation. Survival to hospital discharge after CPR in ventilated patients was 10.1 % (95 % CI 9.8-10.4 %), compared to 19.2 % (95 % CI 19.1-19.3 %) in non-ventilated patients (p < 0.001). Among this group, older age, race other than white, higher burden of chronic illness, and admission from a nursing facility were associated with decreased survival in multivariable analyses. Among all CPR recipients, those who were ventilated had 52 % lower odds of survival (OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.46-0.49, p < 0.001). Median long-term survival in ventilated patients receiving CPR who survived to hospital discharge was 6.0 months (95 % CI 5.3-6.8 months), compared to 19.0 months (95 % CI 18.6-19.5 months) among the non-ventilated survivors (p < 0.001 by logrank test). Of all patients receiving CPR while ventilated, only 4.1 % were alive at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Survival after in-hospital CPR is decreased among ventilated patients compared to those who are not ventilated. This information is important for clinicians, patients, and family members when discussing CPR in critically ill patients.

Multiple in-hospital resuscitation efforts in the elderly.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the characteristics and survival rates of patients receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation more than once during a single hospitalization. DESIGN: We analyzed inpatient Medicare data from 1992 to 2005 identifying beneficiaries 65 years old and older who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation more than once during the same hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS: We examined patient and hospital characteristics, survival to hospital discharge, factors associated with survival to discharge, median survival, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 421,394 patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the study period. Four lakh thirteen thousand four hundred three patients received cardiopulmonary resuscitation once during a hospitalization and survival was 17.7% with median survival after discharge being 20.6 months. There were 7,991 patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation more than once during the same hospitalization; 8.8% survived the efforts, and median survival after leaving the hospital was 10.5 months. Patients who received more than one episode of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during a hospitalization were significantly less likely to go home after discharge. Greater age, black race, higher burden of chronic illness, and receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a larger or metropolitan hospital were associated with lower survival among patients receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation more than once. CONCLUSIONS: Undergoing multiple cardiopulmonary resuscitation events during a hospitalization is associated with substantially reduced short- and long-term survival compared with patients who undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation once. This information may be useful to clinicians when discussing end-of-life care with patients and families of patients who have experienced return of spontaneous circulation following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation but remain at risk for recurrent cardiac arrest.