Outcomes of ICU patients with and without perceptions of excessive care: a comparison between cancer and non-cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Whether Intensive Care Unit (ICU) clinicians display unconscious bias towards cancer patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of critically ill patients with and without perceptions of excessive care (PECs) by ICU clinicians in patients with and without cancer. METHODS: This study is a sub-analysis of the large multicentre DISPROPRICUS study. Clinicians of 56 ICUs in Europe and the United States completed a daily questionnaire about the appropriateness of care during a 28-day period. We compared the cumulative incidence of patients with concordant PECs, treatment limitation decisions (TLDs) and death between patients with uncontrolled and controlled cancer, and patients without cancer. RESULTS: Of the 1641 patients, 117 (7.1%) had uncontrolled cancer and 270 (16.4%) had controlled cancer. The cumulative incidence of concordant PECs in patients with uncontrolled and controlled cancer versus patients without cancer was 20.5%, 8.1%, and 9.1% (p < 0.001 and p = 0.62, respectively). In patients with concordant PECs, we found no evidence for a difference in time from admission until death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60-1.72 and HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49-1.54) and TLDs (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33-1.99 and HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.27-1.81) across subgroups. In patients without concordant PECs, we found differences between the time from admission until death (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.58-3.15 and 1.66, 95% CI 1.28-2.15), without a corresponding increase in time until TLDs (NA, p = 0.3 and 0.7) across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a difference in time from admission until TLDs and death in patients with concordant PECs makes bias by ICU clinicians towards cancer patients unlikely. However, the differences between the time from admission until death, without a corresponding increase in time until TLDs, suggest prognostic unawareness, uncertainty or optimism in ICU clinicians who did not provide PECs, more specifically in patients with uncontrolled cancer. This study highlights the need to improve intra- and interdisciplinary ethical reflection and subsequent decision-making at the ICU.

National Early Warning Score vs Rapid Response Team criteria-Prevalence, misclassification, and outcome.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of deviating vital parameters in general ward patients using rapid response team (RRT) criteria and National Early Warning Score (NEWS), assess exam duration, correct calculation and classification of risk score as well as mortality and adverse events. METHODS: Point prevalence study of vital parameters according to NEWS and RRT criteria of all adult patients admitted to general wards at a Scandinavian university hospital with a mature RRT. PRIMARY OUTCOME: prevalence of at-risk patients fulfilling at least one RRT criteria, total NEWS of 7 or greater or a single NEWS parameter of 3 (red NEWS). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: mortality in-hospital and within 30 days or adverse events within 24 hours. RESULTS: We assessed 598 (75%) of 798 admitted patients and examiners captured a fulfilled RRT calling criterion in 50 patients (8.4%), 36 (6.0%) had NEWS ≥ 7, 34 with a red NEWS parameter. Red NEWS occurred in 112 patients (18.7%). Secondary outcomes were fulfilled in 49 patients (8.2%). Mortality overall was 6.5% within 30 days, 1.8% in hospital. In 134 patients (22.4%) the manual calculation of score for NEWS was incorrectly performed by examiner. CONCLUSION: Even with a mature RRT in place, we captured patients with failing physiology in general wards reflecting afferent limb failure. Manual calculation of NEWS is frequently incorrect, possibly leading to misclassification of patients at risk.

A controlled trial of electronic automated advisory vital signs monitoring in general hospital wards.

OBJECTIVES: Deteriorating ward patients are at increased risk. Electronic automated advisory vital signs monitors may help identify such patients and improve their outcomes. SETTING: A total of 349 beds, in 12 general wards in ten hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Australia. PATIENTS: Cohort of 18,305 patients. DESIGN: Before-and-after controlled trial. INTERVENTION: We deployed electronic automated advisory vital signs monitors to assist in the acquisition of vital signs and calculation of early warning scores. We assessed their effect on frequency, type, and treatment of rapid response team calls; survival to hospital discharge or to 90 days for rapid response team call patients; overall type and number of serious adverse events and length of hospital stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We studied 9,617 patients before (control) and 8,688 after (intervention) deployment of electronic automated advisory vital signs monitors. Among rapid response team call patients, intervention was associated with an increased proportion of calls secondary to abnormal respiratory vital signs (from 21% to 31%; difference [95% confidence interval] 9.9 [0.1-18.5]; p=.029). Survival immediately after rapid response team treatment and survival to hospital discharge or 90 days increased from 86% to 92% (difference [95% confidence interval] 6.3 [0.0-12.6]; p=.04). Intervention was also associated with a decrease in median length of hospital stay in all patients (unadjusted p<.0001; adjusted p=.09) and more so in U.S. patients (from 3.4 to 3.0 days; unadjusted p<.0001; adjusted ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.03 [1.00-1.06]; p=.026). The time required to complete and record a set of vital signs decreased from 4.1±1.3 mins to 2.5±0.5 mins (difference [95% confidence interval] 1.6 [1.4-1.8]; p<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Deployment of electronic automated advisory vital signs monitors was associated with an improvement in the proportion of rapid response team-calls triggered by respiratory criteria, increased survival of patients receiving rapid response team calls, and decreased time required for vital signs measurement and recording (NCT01197326).

"Identifying the hospitalised patient in crisis"--a consensus conference on the afferent limb of rapid response systems.

BACKGROUND: Most reports of Rapid Response Systems (RRS) focus on the efferent, response component of the system, although evidence suggests that improved vital sign monitoring and recognition of a clinical crisis may have outcome benefits. There is no consensus regarding how best to detect patient deterioration or a clear description of what constitutes patient monitoring. METHODS: A consensus conference of international experts in safety, RRS, healthcare technology, education, and risk prediction was convened to review current knowledge and opinion on clinical monitoring. Using established consensus procedures, four topic areas were addressed: (1) To what extent do physiologic abnormalities predict risk for patient deterioration? (2) Do workload changes and their potential stresses on the healthcare environment increase patient risk in a predictable manner? (3) What are the characteristics of an "ideal" monitoring system, and to what extent does currently available technology meet this need? and (4) How can monitoring be categorized to facilitate comparing systems? RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The major findings include: (1) vital sign aberrations predict risk, (2) monitoring patients more effectively may improve outcome, although some risk is random, (3) the workload implications of monitoring on the clinical workforce have not been explored, but are amenable to study and should be investigated, (4) the characteristics of an ideal monitoring system are identifiable, and it is possible to categorize monitoring modalities. It may also be possible to describe monitoring levels, and a system is proposed.