Italian cross-cultural adaptation of the Quality of Communication questionnaire and the 4-item advance care planning engagement questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is influenced by several factors (e.g., patient's readiness to engage, clinician's skills, and the cultural environment). Availability of reliable and valid self-reported measures of the ACP domains is crucial, including cross-cultural equivalence. AIM: To culturally adapt into Italian the 19-item Quality of Communication (QOC) and the 4-item ACP Engagement (4-item ACP-E) questionnaires. METHODS: We translated and culturally adapted the two questionnaires and produced a significant other (SO) version of the QOC (QOC-SO). Each questionnaire was field tested via cognitive interviews with users: nine patients (QOC, 4-item ACP-E) and three SOs (QOC-SO) enrolled at three palliative care services. RESULTS: We made minor changes to 5/19 QOC items, to improve clarity and internal consistency; we changed the response option 'didn't do' into 'not applicable'. Finally, we slightly revised the QOC to adapt it to the paper/electronic format. QOC debriefing revealed that the section on end of life was emotionally challenging for both patients and SOs. We simplified the 4-item ACP-E layout, added a sentence in the introduction, and revised the wording of one item, to improve coherence with the Italian ACP legislation. ACP-E debriefing did not reveal any major issue. CONCLUSIONS: Results were satisfactory in terms of semantic, conceptual and normative equivalence of both questionnaires. Acceptability was satisfactory for the 4-item ACP-E, while findings of the QOC cognitive debriefing informed a major amendment of a pilot trial protocol on ACP in multiple sclerosis (ConCure-SM): use of the interviewer version only, in an adaptive form. Psychometric testing of both questionnaires on a large, independent sample will follow.

Before-After Study of a Checklist to Improve Acute Care to ICU Handoffs.

Transferring care of a patient is a critical process. The objective of this study was to evaluate a checklist to standardize handoffs from acute care to the intensive care unit (ICU). This was a single-center, before-after study of a checklist to standardize transfers of patients from acute care to the medical-cardiac ICU. Clinicians completed surveys about handoffs before and after checklist implementation. The association between study period and survey data was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression with cross-classified multilevel models. Surveys were completed by 179 clinicians. After checklist implementation, handoffs were more likely to occur in the ICU (OR 17.23; 95% CI, 1.81-164.19) and cover patient treatment preferences (OR 2.73; 95% CI, 1.12-6.66). However, checklist uptake was suboptimal (30% of responses indicated checklist use). Implementation of a checklist during acute care to ICU transfers is challenging. Signals suggesting process improvement warrant additional study.

Seriously Ill Patients' Prioritized Goals and Their Clinicians' Perceptions of Those Goals.

CONTEXT: Seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goals are understood by their clinicians are likely better positioned to receive goal-concordant care. OBJECTIVES: To examine the proportion of seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goal is accurately perceived by their clinician and identify factors associated with accurate perception. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness and their clinicians. Approximately two weeks after a clinic visit, patients reported their current prioritized healthcare goal- extending life over relief of pain and discomfort, or relief of pain and discomfort over extending life - and clinicians reported their perception of their patients' current prioritized healthcare goal; matching these items defined accurate perception. RESULTS: Of 252 patients with a prioritized healthcare goal, 60% had their goal accurately perceived by their clinician, 27% were cared for by clinicians who perceived prioritization of the alternative goal, and 13% had their clinician answer unsure. Patients who were older (OR 1.03 per year; 95%CI 1.01, 1.05), had stable goals (OR 2.52; 95%CI 1.26, 5.05), and had a recent goals-of-care discussion (OR 1.78, 95%CI 1.00, 3.16) were more likely to have their goals accurately perceived. CONCLUSION: A majority of seriously ill outpatients are cared for by clinicians who accurately perceive their patients' prioritized healthcare goals. However, a substantial portion are not and may be at higher risk for goal-discordant care. Interventions that facilitate goals-of-care discussions may help align care with goals, as recent discussions were associated with accurate perceptions of patients' prioritized goals.

Evolution of Investigating Informed Assent Discussions about CPR in Seriously Ill Patients.

CONTEXT: Outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remain poor. We have spent 10 years investigating an "informed assent" (IA) approach to discussing CPR with chronically ill patients/families. IA is a discussion framework whereby patients extremely unlikely to benefit from CPR are informed that unless they disagree, CPR will not be performed because it will not help achieve their goals, thus removing the burden of decision-making from the patient/family, while they retain an opportunity to disagree. OBJECTIVES: Determine the acceptability and efficacy of IA discussions about CPR with older chronically ill patients/families. METHODS: This multi-site research occurred in three stages. Stage I determined acceptability of the intervention through focus groups of patients with advanced COPD or malignancy, family members, and physicians. Stage II was an ambulatory pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the IA discussion. Stage III is an ongoing phase 2 RCT of IA versus attention control in in patients with advanced chronic illness. RESULTS: Our qualitative work found the IA approach was acceptable to most patients, families, and physicians. The pilot RCT demonstrated feasibility and showed an increase in participants in the intervention group changing from "full code" to "do not resuscitate" within two weeks after the intervention. However, Stages I and II found that IA is best suited to inpatients. Our phase 2 RCT in older hospitalized seriously ill patients is ongoing; results are pending. CONCLUSIONS: IA is a feasible and reasonable approach to CPR discussions in selected patient populations.

Efficacy of a Communication-Priming Intervention on Documented Goals-of-Care Discussions in Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-quality goals-of-care communication is critical to delivering goal-concordant, patient-centered care to hospitalized patients with chronic life-limiting illness. However, implementation and documentation of goals-of-care discussions remain important shortcomings in many health systems. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care communication for patients hospitalized with serious illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from November 6, 2018, to February 18, 2020. The setting was 2 hospitals in an academic health care system in Seattle, Washington. Participants included hospitalized adults with chronic life-limiting illness, aged 65 years or older and with markers of frailty, or aged 80 years or older. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to August 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to usual care with baseline questionnaires (control) vs the Jumpstart communication-priming intervention. Patients or surrogates in the intervention group and their clinicians received patient-specific Jumpstart Guides populated with data from questionnaires and the electronic health records (EHRs) that were designed to prompt and guide a goals-of-care discussion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was EHR documentation of a goals-of-care discussion between randomization and hospital discharge. Additional outcomes included patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions, patient-reported or surrogate-reported quality of communication, and intervention feasibility and acceptability. Results: Of 428 eligible patients, this study enrolled 150 patients (35% enrollment rate; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [13.6] years; 66 women [44%]; 132 [88%] by patient consent and 18 [12%] by surrogate consent). Seventy-five patients each were randomized to the intervention and control groups. Compared with the control group, the cumulative incidence of EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions between randomization and hospital discharge was higher in the intervention group (16 of 75 patients [21%] vs 6 of 75 patients [8%]; risk difference, 13% [95% CI, 2%-24%]; risk ratio, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.10-6.44]; P = .04). Patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions did not differ significantly between groups (30 of 66 patients [45%] vs 36 of 66 patients [55%]), although the intrarater consistency of patient and surrogate reports was poor. Patient-rated or surrogate-rated quality of communication did not differ significantly between groups. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to patients, surrogates, and clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication priming intervention for seriously ill, hospitalized patients promoted EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions before discharge with good feasibility and acceptability. Communication-priming interventions should be reexamined in a larger randomized clinical trial to better understand their effectiveness in the inpatient setting. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03746392.

Facilitating communication for critically ill patients and their family members: Study protocol for two randomized trials implemented in the U.S. and France.

BACKGROUND: Critically-ill patients and their families suffer a high burden of psychological symptoms due, in part, to many transitions among clinicians and settings during and after critical illness, resulting in fragmented care. Communication facilitators may help. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: We are conducting two cluster-randomized trials, one in the U.S. and one in France, with the goal of evaluating a nurse facilitator trained to support, model, and teach communication strategies enabling patients and families to secure care consistent with patients' goals, beginning in ICU and continuing for 3 months. PARTICIPANTS: We will randomize 376 critically-ill patients in the US and 400 in France to intervention or usual care. Eligible patients have a risk of hospital mortality of greater than15% or a chronic illness with a median survival of approximately 2 years or less. OUTCOMES: We assess effectiveness with patient- and family-centered outcomes, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress, as well as assessments of goal-concordant care, at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-randomization. The primary outcome is family symptoms of depression over 6 months. We also evaluate whether the intervention improves value by reducing utilization while improving outcomes. Finally, we use mixed methods to explore implementation factors associated with implementation outcomes (acceptability, fidelity, acceptability, penetration) to inform dissemination. Conducting the trial in U.S. and France will provide insights into differences and similarities between countries. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the design of two randomized trials of a communication facilitator for improving outcomes for critically ill patients and their families in two countries.

Identifying Goals of Care Conversations in the Electronic Health Record Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are an important quality metric in palliative care. However, goals-of-care discussions are often documented as free text in diverse locations. It is difficult to identify these discussions in the electronic health record (EHR) efficiently. OBJECTIVES: To develop, train, and test an automated approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR, using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML). METHODS: From the electronic health records of an academic health system, we collected a purposive sample of 3183 EHR notes (1435 inpatient notes and 1748 outpatient notes) from 1426 patients with serious illness over 2008-2016, and manually reviewed each note for documentation of goals-of-care discussions. Separately, we developed a program to identify notes containing documentation of goals-of-care discussions using NLP and supervised ML. We estimated the performance characteristics of the NLP/ML program across 100 pairs of randomly partitioned training and test sets. We repeated these methods for inpatient-only and outpatient-only subsets. RESULTS: Of 3183 notes, 689 contained documentation of goals-of-care discussions. The mean sensitivity of the NLP/ML program was 82.3% (SD 3.2%), and the mean specificity was 97.4% (SD 0.7%). NLP/ML results had a median positive likelihood ratio of 32.2 (IQR 27.5-39.2) and a median negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (IQR 0.16-0.20). Performance was better in inpatient-only samples than outpatient-only samples. CONCLUSION: Using NLP and ML techniques, we developed a novel approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR. NLP and ML represent a potential approach toward measuring goals-of-care discussions as a research outcome and quality metric.

Patient-Reported Receipt of Goal-Concordant Care Among Seriously Ill Outpatients-Prevalence and Associated Factors.

CONTEXT: Goal-concordant care is an important indicator of high-quality care in serious illness. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care among seriously ill outpatients and identify factors associated with the absence of patient-reported goal concordance. METHODS: Analysis of enrollment surveys from a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness. Patients reported their prioritized health care goal and the focus of their current medical care; these items were matched to define receipt of goal-concordant care. RESULTS: Of 405 patients with a prioritized health care goal, 58% reported receipt of goal-concordant care, 17% goal-discordant care, and 25% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patient-reported receipt of goal concordance differed by patient goal. For patients who prioritized extending life, 86% reported goal-concordant care, 2% goal-discordant care, and 12% were uncertain of the focus of their care. For patients who prioritized relief of pain and discomfort, 51% reported goal-concordant care, 21% goal-discordant care, and 28% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patients who prioritized a goal of relief of pain and discomfort were more likely to report goal-discordant care than patients who prioritized a goal of extending life (relative risk ratio 22.20; 95% CI 4.59, 107.38). CONCLUSION: Seriously ill outpatients who prioritize a goal of relief of pain and discomfort are less likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who prioritize extending life. Future interventions designed to improve receipt of goal-concordant care should focus on identifying patients who prioritize relief of pain and discomfort and promoting care aligned with that goal.

Toward Understanding the Relationship Between Prioritized Values and Preferences for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Among Seriously Ill Adults.

CONTEXT: Prioritizing among potentially conflicting end-of-life values may help patients discriminate among treatments and allow clinicians to align treatments with values. OBJECTIVES: To investigate end-of-life values that patients prioritize when facing explicit trade-offs and identify predictors of patients whose values and treatment preferences seem inconsistent. METHODS: Analysis of surveys from a multi-center cluster-randomized trial of patients with serious illness. Respondents prioritized end-of-life values and identified cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences in two health states. RESULTS: Of 535 patients, 60% prioritized relief of discomfort over extending life, 17% prioritized extending life over relief of discomfort, and 23% were unsure. Patients prioritizing extending life were most likely to prefer CPR, with 93% preferring CPR in current health and 67% preferring CPR if dependent on others, compared with 69% and 21%, respectively, for patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, and 78% and 33%, respectively, for patients unsure of their prioritized value (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Among patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, preference for CPR in current health was less likely among older patients (odds ratio 0.958 per year; 95% CI 0.935, 0.981) and more likely with better self-perceived health (odds ratio 1.402 per level of health; 95% CI 1.090, 1.804). CONCLUSION: Clinicians face challenges as they clarify patient values and align treatments with values. Patients' values predicted CPR preferences, but a substantial proportion of patients expressed CPR preferences that appeared potentially inconsistent with their primary value. Clinicians should question assumptions about relationships between values and CPR preferences. Further research is needed to identify ways to use values to guide treatment decisions.

Did a Goals-of-Care Discussion Happen? Differences in the Occurrence of Goals-of-Care Discussions as Reported by Patients, Clinicians, and in the Electronic Health Record.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are associated with improved end-of-life care for patients and therefore may be used as a process measure in quality improvement, research, and reimbursement programs. OBJECTIVES: To examine three methods to assess occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion-patient report, clinician report, and documentation in the electronic health record (EHR)-at a clinic visit for seriously ill patients and determine whether each method is associated with patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial, with 494 patients and 124 clinicians caring for them. Self-reported surveys collected from patients and clinicians two weeks after a clinic visit assessed occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion. Documentation of a goals-of-care discussion was abstracted from the EHR. Patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care was assessed by survey two weeks after the visit. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of patients reported occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion at the clinic visit; clinicians reported occurrence of a discussion at 66% of visits. EHR documentation occurred in 42% of visits (P < 0.001 for each compared with other two). Patients who reported occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion at the visit were more likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who reported no discussion (ß 0.441, 95% CI 0.190-0.692; P = 0.001). Neither occurrence of a discussion by clinician report nor by EHR documentation was associated with goal-concordant care. CONCLUSION: Different approaches to assess goals-of-care discussions give differing results, yet each may have advantages. Patient report is most likely to correlate with patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care.

Effect of a Patient and Clinician Communication-Priming Intervention on Patient-Reported Goals-of-Care Discussions Between Patients With Serious Illness and Clinicians: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Clinician communication about goals of care is associated with improved patient outcomes and reduced intensity of end-of-life care, but it is unclear whether interventions can improve this communication. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a patient-specific preconversation communication-priming intervention (Jumpstart-Tips) targeting both patients and clinicians and designed to increase goals-of-care conversations compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter cluster-randomized trial in outpatient clinics with physicians or nurse practitioners and patients with serious illness. The study was conducted between 2012 and 2016. Interventions: Clinicians were randomized to the bilateral, preconversation, communication-priming intervention (n = 65) or usual care (n = 67), with 249 patients assigned to the intervention and 288 to usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was patient-reported occurrence of a goals-of-care conversation during a target outpatient visit. Secondary outcomes included clinician documentation of a goals-of-care conversation in the medical record and patient-reported quality of communication (Quality of Communication questionnaire [QOC]; 4-indicator latent construct) at 2 weeks, as well as patient assessments of goal-concordant care at 3 months and patient-reported symptoms of depression (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire; PHQ-8) and anxiety (7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder survey; GAD-7) at 3 and 6 months. Analyses were clustered by clinician and adjusted for confounders. Results: We enrolled 132 of 485 potentially eligible clinicians (27% participation; 71 women [53.8%]; mean [SD] age, 47.1 [9.6] years) and 537 of 917 eligible patients (59% participation; 256 women [47.7%]; mean [SD] age, 73.4 [12.7] years). The intervention was associated with a significant increase in a goals-of-care discussion at the target visit (74% vs 31%; P < .001) and increased medical record documentation (62% vs 17%; P < .001), as well as increased patient-rated quality of communication (4.6 vs 2.1; P = .01). Patient-assessed goal-concordant care did not increase significantly overall (70% vs 57%; P = .08) but did increase for patients with stable goals between 3-month follow-up and last prior assessment (73% vs 57%; P = .03). Symptoms of depression or anxiety were not different between groups at 3 or 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance: This intervention increased the occurrence, documentation, and quality of goals-of-care communication during routine outpatient visits and increased goal-concordant care at 3 months among patients with stable goals, with no change in symptoms of anxiety or depression. Understanding the effect on subsequent health care delivery will require additional study. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01933789.

Strategies for Enhancing Family Participation in Research in the ICU: Findings From a Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: Family members of critically ill patients who participate in research focused on palliative care issues have been found to be systematically different from those who do not. These differences threaten the validity of research and raise ethical questions about worsening disparities in care by failing to represent diverse perspectives. OBJECTIVES: This study's aims were to explore: 1) barriers and facilitators influencing family members' decisions to participate in palliative care research; and 2) potential methods to enhance research participation. METHODS: Family members who were asked to participate in a randomized trial testing the efficacy of a facilitator to improve clinician-family communication in the intensive care unit (ICU). Family members who participated (n = 17) and those who declined participation (n = 7) in Family Communication Study were interviewed about their recruitment experiences. We also included family members of currently critically ill patients to assess current experiences (n = 4). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Investigators used thematic analysis to identify factors influencing family members' decisions. Transcripts were co-reviewed to synthesize codes and themes. RESULTS: Three factors influencing participants' decisions were identified: Altruism, Research Experience, and Enhanced Resources. Altruism and Research Experience described intrinsic characteristics that are less amenable to strategies for improving participation rates. Enhanced Resources reflects families' desires for increased access to information and logistical and emotional support. CONCLUSION: Family members found their recruitment experiences to be positive when staff were knowledgeable about the ICU, sensitive to the stressful circumstances, and conveyed a caring attitude. By training research staff to be supportive of families' emotional needs and need for logistical knowledge about the ICU, recruitment of a potentially more diverse sample of families may be enhanced.

Factors Affecting Patients' Preferences for and Actual Discussions About End-of-Life Care.

CONTEXT: Discussions about end-of-life care are often difficult for patients and clinicians, and inadequate communication poses a barrier to patients receiving the care they desire. OBJECTIVES: To understand factors that facilitate end-of-life care discussions that guide interventions to improve care. METHODS: We examined baseline data from an ongoing randomized trial to evaluate associations between patients' self-reported desire for, and occurrence of, discussions about end-of-life care and factors influencing these discussions. Factors included emotional symptoms and barriers and facilitators to discussions. The sample included patients with serious illness (n = 473) and their primary or specialty care clinicians (n = 128). Regression analyses were adjusted for confounders and clustered patients under clinicians. RESULTS: Patients who endorsed each of three barriers to discussions were less likely to have had a discussion with their clinician (P-values ranging from <0.001 to 0.046). One facilitator (having had family/friends who died) was associated with past discussions (P = 0.037), and two facilitators were associated with wanting future discussion (P < 0.001): 1) concerns about future quality of life, 2) worries about being a burden on friends/family. Depression and anxiety were not associated with past discussions. However, patients with more anxiety were more likely to want future discussions (P = 0.001), as were patients with more depressive symptoms who had had discussions in the past (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The occurrence of, and desire for, patient-clinician communication about end-of-life care is associated with patient factors including communication barriers and facilitators and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Understanding these factors may facilitate design of effective communication interventions.

Palliative Care for Patients Dying in the Intensive Care Unit with Chronic Lung Disease Compared with Metastatic Cancer.

RATIONALE: Palliative care has been focused largely on patients with cancer, and yet patients with chronic lung diseases also have high morbidity and mortality. The majority of deaths in intensive care units (ICUs) follow decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments, suggesting that palliative care is critically important in this setting. OBJECTIVES: We explored differences in receipt of elements of palliative care among patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who die in ICUs compared with patients with cancer. METHODS: We identified patients with COPD, ILD, or metastatic cancer who died in the ICUs of 15 Seattle-area hospitals between 2003 and 2008. We used robust multivariable logistic and linear regression to compare differences in receipt of elements of palliative care and length of stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with patients with cancer, patients with COPD were more likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation before death and patients with ILD were less likely to have documentation of pain assessment in the last day of life. Patients with ILD and COPD were less likely to have a do-not-resuscitate order in place at the time of death and less likely to have documentation of discussions about prognosis than patients with cancer. Patients with COPD had longer hospital lengths of stay, and patients with COPD and ILD had longer ICU lengths of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who die in the ICU, patients with ILD and COPD receive fewer elements of palliative care and have longer lengths of stay than patients with cancer. These findings identify areas for improvement in caring for patients with chronic lung diseases. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00685893).

Randomized Trial of Communication Facilitators to Reduce Family Distress and Intensity of End-of-Life Care.

RATIONALE: Communication with family of critically ill patients is often poor and associated with family distress. OBJECTIVES: To determine if an intensive care unit (ICU) communication facilitator reduces family distress and intensity of end-of-life care. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial at two hospitals. Eligible patients had a predicted mortality greater than or equal to 30% and a surrogate decision maker. Facilitators supported communication between clinicians and families, adapted communication to family needs, and mediated conflict. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes included depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among family 3 and 6 months after ICU and resource use. We identified 488 eligible patients and randomized 168. Of 352 eligible family members, 268 participated (76%). Family follow-up at 3 and 6 months ranged from 42 to 47%. The intervention was associated with decreased depressive symptoms at 6 months (P = 0.017), but there were no significant differences in psychological symptoms at 3 months or anxiety or PTSD at 6 months. The intervention was not associated with ICU mortality (25% control vs. 21% intervention; P = 0.615) but decreased ICU costs among all patients (per patient: $75,850 control, $51,060 intervention; P = 0.042) and particularly among decedents ($98,220 control, $22,690 intervention; P = 0.028). Among decedents, the intervention reduced ICU and hospital length of stay (28.5 vs. 7.7 d and 31.8 vs. 8.0 d, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Communication facilitators may be associated with decreased family depressive symptoms at 6 months, but we found no significant difference at 3 months or in anxiety or PTSD. The intervention reduced costs and length of stay, especially among decedents. This is the first study to find a reduction in intensity of end-of-life care with similar or improved family distress. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00720200).

Using Nurse Ratings of Physician Communication in the ICU To Identify Potential Targets for Interventions To Improve End-of-Life Care.

BACKGROUND: Communication among doctors, nurses, and families contributes to high-quality end-of-life care, but is difficult to improve. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify aspects of communication appropriate for interventions to improve quality of dying in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This observational study used data from a cluster-randomized trial of an interdisciplinary intervention to improve end-of-life care at 15 Seattle/Tacoma area hospitals (2003-2008). Nurses completed surveys for patients dying in the ICU. We examined associations between nurse-assessed predictors (physician-nurse communication, physician-family communication) and nurse ratings of patients' quality of dying (nurse-QODD-1). RESULTS: Based on 1173 nurse surveys, four of six physician-nurse communication topics were positively associated with nurse-QODD-1: family questions, family dynamics, spiritual/religious issues, and cultural issues. Discussions between nurses and physicians about nurses' concerns for patients or families were negatively associated. All physician-family communication ratings, as assessed by nurses, were positively associated with nurse-QODD-1: answering family's questions, listening to family, asking about treatments patient would want, helping family decide patient's treatment wishes, and overall communication. Path analysis suggested overall physician-family communication and helping family incorporate patient's wishes were directly associated with nurse-QODD-1. CONCLUSIONS: Several topics of physician-nurse communication, as rated by nurses, were associated with higher nurse-rated quality of dying, whereas one topic, nurses' concerns for patient or family, was associated with poorer ratings. Higher nurse ratings of physician-family communication were uniformly associated with higher quality of dying, highlighting the importance of this communication. Physician support of family decision making was particularly important, suggesting a potential target for interventions to improve end-of-life care.

Time to Death after Terminal Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation: Specific Respiratory and Physiologic Parameters May Inform Physician Predictions.

BACKGROUND: Discussions about withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies often include family members of critically ill patients. These conversations should address essential components of the dying process, including expected time to death after withdrawal. OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to aid physician communication about the dying process by identifying predictors of time to death after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis from a single-center, before-after evaluation of an intervention to improve palliative care. We studied 330 patients who died after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Predictors included patient demographics, laboratory, respiratory, and physiologic variables, and medication use. RESULTS: The median time to death for the entire cohort was 0.58 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 0.22-2.25 hours) after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Using Cox regression, independent predictors of shorter time to death included higher positive end-expiratory pressure (per 1 cm H2O hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.11); higher static pressure (per 1 cm H2O HR, 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.04); extubation prior to death (HR, 1.41; 95% CI 1.06-1.86); and presence of diabetes (HR, 1.75; 95% CI 1.25-2.44). Higher noninvasive mean arterial pressure predicted longer time to death (per 1 mmHg HR, 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid illness and key respiratory and physiologic parameters may inform physician predictions of time to death after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. An understanding of the predictors of time to death may facilitate discussions with family members of dying patients and improve communication about end-of-life care.

Clinicians' perceptions of the usefulness of a communication facilitator in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Despite its documented importance, communication between clinicians and patients' families in the intensive care unit often fails to meet families' needs, and interventions to improve communication are needed. Use of a communication facilitator-an additional staff member-to improve communication between clinicians and patients' families is the focus of an ongoing randomized trial. The clinical team's acceptance of the communication facilitator as an integral part of the team is important. OBJECTIVES: To explore clinicians' perceptions of the usefulness of a communication facilitator in the intensive care unit. METHODS: Fourteen semistructured qualitative interviews to assess perspectives of physicians, nurses, and social workers who had experience with the communication facilitator intervention on the intervention and the role of the facilitator. Methods based on grounded theory were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Clinicians perceived facilitators as (1) facilitating communication between patients' families and clinicians, (2) providing practical and emotional support for patients' families, and (3) providing practical and emotional support for clinicians. Clinicians were enthusiastic about the communication facilitator but concerned about overlapping or conflicting roles. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in the intensive care unit saw the facilitator intervention as enhancing communication and supporting both patients' families and clinicians. They also identified the importance of the facilitator within the interdisciplinary team. Negative perceptions about the use of a facilitator should be addressed before the intervention is implemented, in order to ensure its effectiveness.

Quality of dying in the ICU: is it worse for patients admitted from the hospital ward compared to those admitted from the emergency department?

OBJECTIVE: Although most intensive care unit (ICU) admissions originate in the emergency department (ED), a substantial number of admissions arrive from hospital wards. Patients transferred from the hospital ward often share clinical characteristics with those admitted from the ED, but family expectations may differ. An understanding of the impact of ICU admission source on family perceptions of end-of-life care may help improve patient and family outcomes by identifying those at risk for poor outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a cohort study of patients with chronic illness and acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation who died after admission to an ICU in any of the 14 participating hospitals in the Seattle-Tacoma area between 2003 and 2008 (n = 1,500). MEASUREMENTS: Using regression models adjusted for hospital site and patient-, nurse- and family-level characteristics, we examined associations between ICU admission source (hospital ward vs. ED) and (1) family ratings of satisfaction with ICU care; (2) family and nurse ratings of quality of dying; (3) chart-based indicators of palliative care. MAIN RESULTS: Admission from the hospital ward was associated with lower family ratings of quality of dying [ß -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.54, -0.26, p = 0.006] and satisfaction (total score ß -3.97, 95% CI -7.89, -0.05, p = 0.047; satisfaction with care domain score ß -5.40, 95% CI -9.44, -1.36, p = 0.009). Nurses did not report differences in quality of dying. Patients from hospital wards were less likely to have family conferences [odds ratio (OR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.52, 0.88, p = 0.004] or discussion of prognosis in the first 72 h after ICU admission (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56, 0.91, p = 0.007) but were more likely to receive spiritual care (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14, 1.93, p = 0.003) or have life support withdrawn (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.04, 1.82, p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Admission from the hospital ward is associated with family perceptions of a lower quality of dying and less satisfaction with ICU care. Differences in receipt of palliative care suggest that family of patients from the hospital ward receive less communication. Nurse ratings of quality of dying did not significantly differ by ICU admission source, suggesting dissimilarities between family and nurse perspectives. This study identifies a patient population at risk for poor quality palliative and end-of-life care. Future studies are needed to identify interventions to improve care for patients who deteriorate on the wards following hospital admission.

The association of spiritual care providers' activities with family members' satisfaction with care after a death in the ICU*.

OBJECTIVES: Spiritual distress is common in the ICU, and spiritual care providers are often called upon to provide care for patients and their families. Our goal was to evaluate the activities spiritual care providers' conduct to support patients and families and whether those activities are associated with family satisfaction with ICU care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Three hundred fifty-bed tertiary care teaching hospital with 65 ICU beds. SUBJECTS: Spiritual care providers and family members of patients who died in the ICU or within 30 hours of transfer from the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Spiritual care providers completed surveys reporting their activities. Family members completed validated measures of satisfaction with care and satisfaction with spiritual care. Clustered regression was used to assess the association between activities completed by spiritual care providers and family ratings of care. Of 494 eligible patients, 275 family members completed surveys (response rate, 56%). Fifty-seven spiritual care providers received surveys relating to 268 patients, completing 285 surveys for 244 patients (response rate, 91%). Spiritual care providers commonly reported activities related to supporting religious and spiritual needs (≥ 90%) and providing support for family feelings (90%). Discussions about the patient's wishes for end-of-life care and a greater number of spiritual care activities performed were both associated with increased overall family satisfaction with ICU care (p < 0.05). Discussions about a patient's end-of-life wishes, preparation for a family conference, and total number of activities performed were associated with improved family satisfaction with decision-making in the ICU (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Spiritual care providers engage in a variety of activities with families of ICU patients; several are associated with increased family satisfaction with ICU care in general and decision-making in the ICU specifically. These findings provide insight into spiritual care provider activities and provide guidance for interventions to improve spiritual care delivered to families of critically ill patients.