ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This review examined studies regarding the implementation and translation of patients' advance directives (AD) in intensive care units (ICUs), focusing on practical difficulties and obstacles. METHODS: The digital PubMed and Medline databases were screened using predefined keywords to identify relevant prospective and retrospective studies published until 2022. RESULTS: Seventeen studies from the United States, Europe, and South Africa (including 149,413 patients and 1210 healthcare professionals) were identified. The highest prevalence of ADs was described in a prospective study in North America (49%), followed by Central Europe (13%), Asia (4%), Australia and New Zealand (4%), Latin America (3%), and Northern and Southern Europe (2.6%). While four retrospective studies reported limited effects of ADs, four retrospective studies, one survey and one systematic review indicated significant effects on provision of intensive care, higher rates of do-not-resuscitate orders, and care withholding in patients with ADs. Four of these studies showed shorter ICU stays, and lower treatment costs in patients with ADs. One prospective and two retrospective studies reported issues with loss, delayed or no transmission of ADs. One survey revealed that 91% of healthcare workers did not regularly check for ADs. Two retrospective studies and two survey revealed that the implementation of directives is further challenged by issues with their applicability, phrasing, and compliance by the critical care team and family members. CONCLUSIONS: Although ADs may improve intensive- and end-of-life care, insufficient knowledge, lack of awareness, poor communication between healthcare providers and patients or surrogates, lack of standardization of directives, as well as ethical and legal concerns challenge their implementation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Accurate initial patient triage in the emergency department (ED) is pivotal in reducing time to effective treatment by the medical team and in expediting patient flow. The Manchester Triage System (MTS) is widely implemented for this purpose. Yet the overall effectiveness of its performance remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the ability of MTS to accurately assess high treatment priority and to predict adverse clinical outcomes in a large unselected population of medical ED patients. METHODS: We prospectively followed consecutive medical patients seeking ED care for 30 days. Triage nurses implemented MTS upon arrival of patients admitted to the ED. The primary endpoint was high initial treatment priority adjudicated by two independent physicians. Secondary endpoints were 30-day all-cause mortality, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and length of stay. We used regression models with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as a measure of discrimination. RESULTS: Of the 2407 patients, 524 (21.8%) included patients (60.5 years, 55.7% males) who were classified as high treatment priority; 3.9% (n = 93) were transferred to the ICU; and 5.7% (n = 136) died. The initial MTS showed fair prognostic accuracy in predicting treatment priority (AUC 0.71) and ICU admission (AUC 0.68), but not in predicting mortality (AUC 0.55). Results were robust across most predefined subgroups, including patients diagnosed with infections, or cardiovascular or gastrointestinal diseases. In the subgroup of neurological symptoms and disorders, the MTS showed the best performance. CONCLUSION: The MTS showed fair performance in predicting high treatment priority and adverse clinical outcomes across different medical ED patient populations. Future research should focus on further refinement of the MTS so that its performance can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01768494.