Responding to the deteriorating patient: The rationale for treatment escalation plans.

A Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) is a communication tool designed to improve quality of care in hospital, particularly if patients deteriorate. The aims are to reduce variation caused by discontinuity of care; avoid harms caused by inappropriate treatment and promote patients' priorities and preferences. The TEP is based on the goals of treatment - 'What are we trying to achieve?' The goals take account of the context of acute illness, the consequences of interventions and discussion with the patient. They should reflect a shift away from 'fix-it' medicine to what is realistic and pragmatic. A TEP has three escalation categories: full escalation, selected appropriate treatments and palliative/supportive care. Other appropriate/inappropriate treatments are also recorded. Treatment Escalation Plans are associated with significant reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, non-beneficial interventions, harms and complaints. Treatment Escalation Plans contribute to staff well-being by reducing uncertainty. Successful implementation requires training and education in medical decision-making and communication skills.

Cost impact of introducing a treatment escalation/limitation plan during patients' last hospital admission before death.

OBJECTIVE: A recent study found that the use of a treatment escalation/limitation plan (TELP) was associated with a significant reduction in non-beneficial interventions (NBIs) and harms in patients admitted acutely who subsequently died. We quantify the economic benefit of the use of a TELP. DESIGN: NBIs were micro-costed. Mean costs for patients with a TELP were compared to patients without a TELP using generalized linear model regression, and results were extrapolated to the Scottish population. SETTING: Medical, surgical and intensive care units of district general hospital in Scotland, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and eighty-seven consecutive patients who died over 3 months in 2017. Of these, death was 'expected' in 245 (85.4%) using Gold Standards Framework criteria. INTERVENTION: Treatment escalation/limitation plan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Between-group difference in estimated mean cost of NBIs. RESULTS: The group with a TELP (n = 152) had a mean reduction in hospital costs due to NBIs of GB £220.29 (US $;281.97) compared to those without a TELP (n = 132) (95% confidence intervals GB £323.31 (US $413.84) to GB £117.27 (US $150.11), P = <0.001). Assuming that a TELP could be put in place for all expected deaths in Scottish hospitals, the potential annual saving would be GB £2.4 million (US $3.1 million) from having a TELP in place for all 'expected' deaths in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a TELP in an acute hospital setting may result in a reduction in costs attributable to NBIs.

A case-controlled study of relatives' complaints concerning patients who died in hospital: The role of treatment escalation/limitation planning.

OBJECTIVES: To independently assess quality of care among patients who died in hospital and whose next-of-kin submitted a letter of complaint and make comparisons with matched controls. To identify whether use of a treatment escalation limitation plan (TELP) during the terminal illness was a relevant background factor. DESIGN: The study was an investigator-blinded retrospective case-note review of 42 complaints cases and 72 controls matched for age, sex, ward location and time of death. SETTING: The acute medical and surgical wards of three District General Hospitals administered by NHS Lanarkshire, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: None. INTERVENTION: None. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of care: clinical 'problems', non-beneficial interventions (NBIs) and harms were evaluated using the Structured Judgment Review Method. Complaints were categorized using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool. RESULTS: The event frequencies and rate ratios for clinical 'problems', NBIs and harms were consistently higher in complaint cases compared to controls. The difference was only significant for NBIs (P = 0.05). TELPs were used less frequently in complaint cases compared to controls (23.8 versus 47.2%, P = 0.013). The relationship between TELP use and the three key clinical outcomes was nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Care delivered to patients at end-of-life whose next-of-kin submitted a complaint was poorer overall than among control patients when assessed independently by blinded reviewers. Regular use of a TELP in acute clinical settings has the potential to influence complaints relating to end-of-life care, but this requires further prospective study.

Impact of a treatment escalation/limitation plan on non-beneficial interventions and harms in patients during their last admission before in-hospital death, using the Structured Judgment Review Method.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of using a treatment escalation/limitation plan (TELP) on the frequency of harms in 300 patients who died following admission to hospital. DESIGN: A retrospective case note review of 300 unselected, consecutive deaths comprising: (1) patients with a TELP in addition to a do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order (DNACPR); (2) those with DNACPR only; and (3) those with neither. Patient deaths were classified retrospectively as 'expected' or 'unexpected' using the Gold Standard Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance. SETTING: Medical, surgical and intensive care units of a district general hospital. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the between-group difference in rates of harms, non-beneficial interventions (NBIs) and clinical 'problems' identified using the Structured Judgement Review Method. RESULTS: 289 case records were evaluable. 155 had a TELP and DNACPR (54%); 113 had DNACPR only (39%); 21 had neither (7%). 247 deaths (86%) were 'expected'. Among patients with 'expected' deaths and using the TELP/DNACPR as controls (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=1.00), the IRRs were: for harms, 2.99 (DNACPR only) and 4.00 (neither TELP nor DNACPR) (p<0.001 for both); for NBIs, the corresponding IRRs were 2.23 (DNACPR only) and 2.20 (neither) (p<0.001 and p<0.005, respectively); for 'problems', 2.30 (DNACPR only) and 2.76 (neither) (p<0.001 for both). The rates of harms, NBIs and 'problems' were significantly lower in the group with a TELP/DNACPR compared with 'DNACPR only' and 'neither': harms (per 1000 bed days) 17.1, 76.9 (p<0.001) and 197.8 (p<0.001) respectively; NBIs: 27.4, 92.1 (p<0.001) and 172.4 (p<0.001); and 'problems': 42.3, 146.2 (p<0.01) and 333.3 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a TELP was associated with a significant reduction in harms, NBIs and 'problems' in patients admitted acutely and who subsequently died, especially if they were likely to be in the last year of life.

Futility and appropriateness: challenging words, important concepts.

The provision of healthcare is being challenged by a 'perfect storm' of forces including an increasing population with multiple comorbidities, high expectations and resource limitations, and in the background, the pre-eminence of the 'curative medical model'. Non-beneficial (futile) treatments are wasteful and costly. They have a negative impact on quality of life especially in the last year of life. Among professionals, frequent encounters with futility cause moral distress and demoralisation. The factors that drive non-beneficial treatments include personal biases, patient-related pressures and institutional imperatives. Breaking loose from the perceived necessity to deliver non-beneficial treatment is a major challenge. Curative intent should give way to appropriateness such that curative and palliative interventions are valued equally. Goals of treatment should be shaped by illness trajectory, the risk of harms as well as potential benefits and patient preferences. This strategy should be reflected in professional training and the design of acute services.