Barriers and Facilitators to End-of-Life Care Delivery in ICUs: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand frontline ICU clinician's perceptions of end-of-life care delivery in the ICU. DESIGN: Qualitative observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: Seven ICUs across three hospitals in an integrated academic health system. SUBJECTS: ICU clinicians (physicians [critical care, palliative care], advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, chaplains). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 27 semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The research team reviewed all transcripts inductively to develop a codebook. Thematic analysis was conducted through coding, category formulation, and sorting for data reduction to identify central themes. Deductive reasoning facilitated data category formulation and thematic structuring anchored on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model identified that work systems (people, environment, tools, tasks) lead to processes and outcomes. Four themes were barriers or facilitators to end-of-life care. First, work system barriers delayed end-of-life care communication among clinicians as well as between clinicians and families. For example, over-reliance on palliative care people in handling end-of-life discussions prevented timely end-of-life care discussions with families. Second, clinician-level variability existed in end-of-life communication tasks. For example, end-of-life care discussions varied greatly in process and outcomes depending on the clinician leading the conversation. Third, clinician-family-patient priorities or treatment goals were misaligned. Conversely, regular discussion and joint decisions facilitated higher familial confidence in end-of-life care delivery process. These detailed discussions between care teams aligned priorities and led to fewer situations where patients/families received conflicting information. Fourth, clinician moral distress occurred from providing nonbeneficial care. Interviewees reported standardized end-of-life care discussion process incorporated by the people in the work system including patient, family, and clinicians were foundational to delivering end-of-life care that reduced both patient and family suffering, as well as clinician moral distress. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized work system communication tasks may improve end-of life discussion processes between clinicians and families.

Establishing the clinical relevance of grade A post-hepatectomy liver failure.

INTRODUCTION: The International Study Group of Liver Surgery's criteria stratifies post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) into grades A, B, and C. The clinical significance of these grades has not been fully established. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) hepatectomy-targeted database was analyzed. Outcomes between patients without PHLF, with grade A PHLF, and grade B or C PHLF were compared. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Six thousand two hundred seventy-four adults undergoing elective major hepatectomy were included in the analysis. The incidence of grade A PHLF was 4.3% and grade B or C was 5.3%. Mortality was similar between patients without PHLF (1.2%) and with grade A PHLF (1.1%), but higher in those with grades B or C PHLF (25.4%). Overall morbidities rates were 19.3%, 41.7%, and 72.8% in patients without PHLF, with grade A PHLF, and with grade B or C PHLF, respectively (p < 0.001). Grade A PHLF was associated with increased morbidity (grade A: odds ratios [OR] 2.7 [95% CI: 2.0-3.5]), unplanned reoperation (grade A: OR 3.4 [95% CI: 2.2-5.1]), nonoperative intervention (grade A: OR 2.6 [95% CI: 1.9-3.6]), length of stay (grade A: OR 3.1 [95% CI: 2.3-4.1]), and readmission (grade A: OR 1.8 [95% CI: 1.3-2.5]) compared to patients without PHLF. CONCLUSIONS: Although mortality was similar between patients without PHLF and with grade A PHLF, other postoperative outcomes were notably inferior. Grade A PHLF is a clinically distinct entity with relevant associated postoperative morbidity.

Defining conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication in an open surgical intensive care unit: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Poor interdisciplinary care team communication has been associated with increased mortality. The study aimed to define conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication. DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional qualitative study. SETTING: A surgical intensive care unit in a large, urban, academic referral medical centre. PARTICIPANTS: A total 6 interviews and 10 focus groups from February to June 2021 (N=33) were performed. Interdisciplinary clinicians who cared for critically ill patients were interviewed. Participants included intensivist, transplant, colorectal, vascular, surgical oncology, trauma faculty surgeons (n=10); emergency medicine, surgery, gynaecology, radiology physicians-in-training (n=6), advanced practice providers (n=5), nurses (n=7), fellows (n=1) and subspecialist clinicians such as respiratory therapists, pharmacists and dieticians (n=4). Audiorecorded content of interviews and focus groups were deidentified and transcribed verbatim. The study team iteratively generated the codebook. All transcripts were independently coded by two team members. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication. RESULTS: We identified five themes relating to conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication in our surgical intensive care unit setting: role definition, formal processes, informal communication pathways, hierarchical influences and psychological safety. Participants reported that clear role definition and standardised formal communication processes empowered clinicians to engage in discussions that mitigated hierarchy and facilitated psychological safety. CONCLUSIONS: Standardising communication and creating defined roles in formal processes can promote effective interdisciplinary care team communication by fostering psychological safety.

Is the Implementation of an Interprofessional Communication Smart Phone Application Associated With Improved Survival Among Critically Ill Surgical Patients?

INTRODUCTION: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) have high rates of mortality and morbidity. Improved communication between providers within ICUs may reduce morbidity. The goal of this study is to leverage a natural experiment of the temporally staggered implementation of a smart phone application for interprofessional communication to quantify the association with postoperative mortality and morbidity among critically ill surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted an observational case-control study and utilized a difference-in-difference model to determine the impact of temporally staggered implementation of an interprofessional communication smart phone application on mortality, postoperative hyperglycemia, malnutrition, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and surgical site infections. Our study included patients who underwent surgical procedures and were admitted to the ICU at one of three hospitals (one academic medical center, hospital A, and two community hospitals, hospitals B and C) in a single health system between March 2018 and April 2021. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 1457 patients, of which 1174 were hospitalized at hospital A and 283 at hospitals B and C. In the full cohort, 80 (5.6%) patients died during ICU admission. Difference-in-difference analysis demonstrated a relative difference in mortality of 4.8% [1.1%-8.5%] (P = 0.04) at hospitals B and C compared to hospital A after the implementation of the application. Our model demonstrated a 2.5% difference in VTEs [1.1%-3.8%], P = 0.03. There were no significant reductions in hyperglycemia, malnutrition, or surgical site infection. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an interprofessional communication smart phone application is associated with reduced mortality and VTE incidence among critically ill surgical patients across three diverse hospitals.

A model for a career in a specialty of general surgery: One surgeon's opinion.

BACKGROUND: The integration of general and endocrine surgery was studied as a potential career model for fellowship trained general surgeons. METHODS: Case logs collected from 1991-2016 and academic milestones were examined for a single general surgeon with a focused interest in endocrine surgery. Operations were categorized using CPT codes and the 2017 ACGME "Major Case Categories" and there frequencies were determined. RESULTS: 10,324 operations were performed on 8209 patients. 412.9 ± 84.9 operations were performed yearly including 279.3 ± 42.7 general and 133.7 ± 65.5 endocrine operations. A high-volume endocrine surgery practice and a rank of tenured professor were achieved by years 11 and 13, respectively. At year 25, the frequency of endocrine operations exceeded general surgery operations. CONCLUSION: Maintaining a foundation in broad-based general surgery with a specialty focus is a sustainable career model. Residents and fellows can use the model to help plan their careers with realistic expectations.

Application of a simple, affordable quality metric tool to colorectal, upper gastrointestinal, hernia, and hepatobiliary surgery patients: the HARM score.

BACKGROUND: Quality is the major driver for both clinical and financial assessment. There remains a need for simple, affordable, quality metric tools to evaluate patient outcomes, which led us to develop the HospitAl length of stay, Readmission and Mortality (HARM) score. We hypothesized that the HARM score would be a reliable tool to assess patient outcomes across various surgical specialties. METHODS: From 2011 to 2015, we identified colorectal, hepatobiliary, upper gastrointestinal, and hernia surgery admissions using the Vizient Clinical Database. Individual and hospital HARM scores were calculated from length of stay, 30-day readmission, and mortality rates. We evaluated the correlation of HARM scores with complication rates using the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: We identified 525,083 surgical patients: 206,981 colorectal, 164,691 hepatobiliary, 97,157 hernia, and 56,254 upper gastrointestinal. Overall, 53.8% of patients were admitted electively with a mean HARM score of 2.24; 46.2% were admitted emergently with a mean HARM score of 1.45 (p < 0.0001). All HARM components correlated with patient complications on logistic regression (p < 0.0001). The mean length of stay increased from 3.2 ± 1.8 days for a HARM score < 2 to 15.1 ± 12.2 days for a HARM score > 4 (p < 0.001). In elective admissions, for HARM categories of < 2, 2-< 3, 3-4, and > 4, complication rates were 9.3, 23.2, 38.8, and 71.6%, respectively. There was a similar trend for increasing HARM score in emergent admissions as well. For all surgical procedure categories, increasing HARM score, with and without risk adjustment, correlated with increasing severity of complications by Clavien-Dindo classification. CONCLUSIONS: The HARM score is an easy-to-use quality metric that correlates with increasing complication rates and complication severity across multiple surgical disciplines when evaluated on a large administrative database. This inexpensive tool could be adopted across multiple institutions to compare the quality of surgical care.