Appropriateness of intensive care treatments near the end of life during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The patient and family perspective on the appropriateness of intensive care unit (ICU) treatments involves preferences, values and social constructs beyond medical criteria. The clinician's perception of inappropriateness is more reliant on clinical judgment. Earlier consultation with families before ICU admission and patient education on the outcomes of life-sustaining therapies may help reconcile these provider-patient disagreements. However, global emergencies like COVID-19 change the usual paradigm of end-of-life care, as it is a new disease with only scarce predictive information about it. Pandemics can also bring about the burdensome predicament of doctors having to make unwanted choices of rationing access to the ICU when demand for otherwise life-saving resources exceeds supply. Evidence-based prognostic checklists may guide treatment triage but the principles of shared decision-making are unchanged. Yet, they need to be altered with respect to COVID-19, defining likely outcomes and likelihood of benefit for the patient, and clarifying their willingness to take on the risks inherent to being in an ICU for 2 weeks for those eligible. For patients who are admitted during the prodrome of COVID-19 disease, or those who deteriorate in the second week, clinicians have some lead time in hospital to have appropriate discussions about ceilings of treatments offered based on severity. KEY POINTS: The patient and family perspective on inappropriateness of intensive care at the end of life often differs from the clinician's opinion due to the nonmedical frame of mind.To improve satisfaction with communication on treatment goals, consultation on patient values and inclusion of social constructs in addition to clinical prediction is a good start to reconcile differences between physician and health service users' viewpoints.During pandemics, where health systems may collapse, different admission criteria driven by the need to ration services may be warranted. EDUCATIONAL AIMS: To explore the extent to which older patients and their families are involved in decisions about appropriateness of intensive care admission or treatmentsTo understand how patients or their families define inappropriate intensive care admission or treatmentsTo reflect on the implications of decision to admit or not to admit to the intensive care unit in the face of acute resource shortages during a pandemic.

Are We Making Progress on Communication with People Who Are Near the End of Life in the Australian Health System? A Thematic Analysis.

Initiating end-of-life (EoL) discussions with patients is often delayed or avoided altogether by healthcare practitioners even in light of imminent death. This continues despite the availability of guidelines and conceptual frameworks on how to communicate prognoses at EoL. We surveyed healthcare practitioners to elicit their exposure to and confidence in EoL discussions and to better understand factors that enable or challenge the initiation of discussions in Australian healthcare settings. Thematic analysis identified that EoL discussions could be emotionally burdensome for healthcare practitioners but were regarded as valuable. Effective communications were challenged by conflict with families and between healthcare practitioners as to appropriate care goal transition, and by prognostic uncertainty. Communication skills appeared to be developed more from experience, and beneficial strategies such as role play and mentoring particularly for younger nurses and doctors were identified. Specific training in EoL communications should target undergraduates and new healthcare practitioners.

Dissonance on perceptions of end-of-life needs between health-care providers and members of the public: Quantitative cross-sectional surveys.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate views, determinants and barriers to end-of-life discussions for doctors, nurses and members of the public (MoP) and their acceptability of risk prediction tools. METHODS: Concurrent surveys of 360 doctors and nurses and 497 MoP. RESULTS: Sixty per cent of clinicians reported high confidence in initiating end-of-life discussions, and 55.8% regularly engaged in them. Barriers to end-of-life communication reported by clinicians were uncertainty on the likely time to death (44.7%) and family requests to withhold information from patients (44.2%). By contrast, most (92.8%) MoP wanted information about life expectancy; 89.9% wanted involvement in treatment decisions if the likelihood of death was high; and 23.8% already had an advance care directive. CONCLUSIONS: A dissonance exists between doctor/nurses perception of older peoples' preference for receiving prognostic information and the public desire for involvement in decision-making at the end of life. As public attitudes change, strategies for greater involvement of patients in shared end-of-life planning are warranted.