RESUMEN
Objective: Determine the prevalence and outcomes of patients with life-limiting illness (LLI) admitted to Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Design setting participants: Retrospective registry-linked observational cohort study of all adults admitted to Australian and New Zealand ICUs from 1st January 2018 until 31st December 2020 (New Zealand) and 31st March 2022 (Australia), recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, and 4-year survival. Results: A total of 566,260 patients were included, of whom 129,613 (22.9%) had one or more LLI. Mortality at one year was 28.1% in those with LLI and 10.4% in those without LLI (p < 0.001). Mortality in intensive care (6.8% v 3.4%, p < 0.001), hospital (11.8% v 5.0%, p < 0.001), and at two (36.6% v 14.1%, p < 0.001), three (43.7% v 17.7%, p < 0.001) and four (55.6% v 24.5%, p < 0.001) years were all higher in the cohort of patients with LLI. Patients with LLI had a longer ICU (1.9 [0.9, 3.7] v 1.6 [0.9, 2.9] days, p < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (8.8 [49,16.0] v 7.2 [3.9, 12.9] days, p < 0.001), and were more commonly readmitted to ICU during the same hospitalisation than patients without LLI (5.2% v 3.7%, p < 0.001). After multivariate analysis the LLI with the strongest adverse effect on survival was frailty (HR 2.08, 95% CI 2.03 to 2.12, p < 0.001), followed by the presence of metastatic cancer (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.02, p < 0.001), and chronic liver disease (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.65 to 1.71, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients with LLI account for almost a quarter of ICU admissions in Australia and New Zealand, require prolonged ICU and hospital care, and have high mortality in subsequent years. This knowledge should be used to identify this vulnerable cohort of patients, and to ensure that treatment is aligned to each patient's values and realistic goals.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Monitoring healthcare quality is challenging in paediatric critical care due to measure variability, data collection burden, and uncertainty regarding consumer and clinician priorities. Objective: We sought to establish a core quality measure set that (i) is meaningful to consumers and clinicians and (ii) promotes alignment of measure use and collection across paediatric critical care. Design: We conducted a multi-stakeholder Delphi study with embedded consumer prioritisation survey. The Delphi involved two surveys, followed by a consensus meeting. Triangulation methods were used to integrate survey findings prior tobefore the consensus meeting. In the consensus panel, broad agreement was reached on a core measure set, and recommendations were made for future measurement directions in paediatric critical care. Setting and participants: Australian and New Zealand paediatric critical care survivors (aged >18 years) and families were invited to rank measure priorities in an online survey distributed via social media and consumer groups. A concurrent Delphi study was undertaken with paediatric critical care clinicians, policy makers, and a consumer representative. Interventions: None. Main outcome measures: Priorities for quality measures. Results: Respondents to the consumer survey (n = 117) identified (i) nurse-patient ratios; (ii) visible patient goals; and (iii) long-term follow-up as their quality measure priorities. In the Delphi process, clinicians (Round 1 n = 191; Round 2 n = 117 [61% retention]; Round 3 n = 14) and a consumer representative reached broad agreement on a 51-item (61% of 83 initial measures) core measure set. Clinician priorities were (i) nurse-patient ratio; (ii) staff turnover; and (iii) long term-follow up. Measure feasibility was rated low due to a perceived lack of standardised case definitions or data collection burden. Five recommendations were generated. Conclusions: We defined a 51-item core measurement set for paediatric critical care, aligned with clinician and consumer priorities. Next steps are implementation and methodological evaluation in quality programs, and where appropriate, retirement of redundant measures.