Survival After Severe COVID-19: Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the long-term sequelae of severe COVID-19 remains limited, particularly in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term outcomes of patients who required intensive care unit (ICU) admission for severe COVID-19. DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND MAIN MEASURES: This is a prospective cohort study of patients who had severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU admission in a two-hospital academic health system in Southern California. Patients discharged alive between 3/21/2020 and 12/31/2020 were surveyed approximately 6 months after discharge to assess health-related quality of life using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29 v2.1, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and loneliness scales. A preference-based health utility score (PROPr) was estimated using 7 PROMIS domain scores. Patients were also asked their attitude about receiving aggressive ICU care. KEY RESULTS: Of 275 patients admitted to the ICU for severe COVID-19, 205 (74.5%) were discharged alive and 132 (64%, median age 59, 46% female) completed surveys a median of 182 days post-discharge. Anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, ability to participate in social activities, pain interference, and cognitive function were not significantly different from the U.S. general population, but physical function (44.2, SD 11.0) was worse. PROPr mean score of 0.46 (SD 0.30, range -0.02 to 0.96 [<0 is worse than dead and 1 represents perfect health]) was slightly lower than the U.S. general population, with an even distribution across the continuum. Poor PROPr was associated with chronic medical conditions and receipt of life-sustaining treatments, but not demographics or social vulnerability. PTSD was suspected in 20% and loneliness in 29% of patients. Ninety-eight percent of patients were glad they received life-saving treatment. CONCLUSION: Most patients who survive severe COVID-19 achieve positive outcomes, with health scores similar to the general population at 6 months post-discharge. However, there is marked heterogeneity in outcomes with a substantial minority reporting severely compromised health.

Rapid Mortality Review in the Intensive Care Unit: An In-Person, Multidisciplinary Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Significant resources have been allocated to decreasing the number of preventable deaths in hospitals, but identifying preventable factors and then leveraging them to effect system-wide change remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of a novel in-person, multidisciplinary "rapid mortality review" process to identify deaths that are preventable and action items that lead to improvements in care. METHODS: Rapid mortality review sessions were conducted weekly for patients who died in the medical intensive care unit. Patient data and clinician opinions regarding preventable deaths were discussed and recorded. Bivariate analyses were done to detect associations between case variables and the formation of an action item. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2018, 542 patient deaths were reviewed; of those, 36 deaths (7%) were deemed potentially preventable. Facilitators identified issues in 294 cases (54%). A total of 253 action items were identified for 175 cases (32%); 60% of those action items were subsequently completed and led to tangible systemic change in 29 instances (11%). Action items were more likely to be identified for patients who had not been receiving comfort care (P < .001), for patients who had received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P < .001), when the treatment team (P < .001) or the rapid mortality review facilitator (P < .001) had care-related concerns, and when the patient's death had been preventable (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Even in settings with low reported rates of preventable deaths, an in-person multidisciplinary mortality review can successfully identify areas where care can be improved, leading to systemic change.

Change in inappropriate critical care over time.

PURPOSE: Intensive care interventions that prolong life without achieving meaningful benefit are considered clinically "inappropriate". In 2012, the frequency of perceived-inappropriate critical care was 10.8% at one academic health system; and we aimed to re-evaluate this frequency. METHODS: For 4 months in 2017, we surveyed critical care physicians daily and asked whether each patient was receiving appropriate, probably inappropriate, or inappropriate critical care. Patients were categorized into three groups: 1) patients for whom treatment was never inappropriate, 2) patients with at least one assessment that treatment was probably inappropriate, but no inappropriate treatment assessments, and 3) patients who had at least one assessment of inappropriate treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-five physicians made 10,105 assessments on 1424 patients. Of these, 94 (6.6%) patients received at least one assessment of inappropriate critical care, which is lower than 2012 (10.8% (p < 0.01)). Comparing 2017 and 2012, patient age, MS-DRG, length of stay, and hospital mortality were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Inpatient mortality in 2017 was 73% for patients receiving inappropriate critical care. CONCLUSIONS: Over five years the proportion of patients perceived to be receiving inappropriate critical care dropped by 40%. Understanding the reasons for such change might elucidate how to continue to reduce inappropriate critical care.

Resource utilisation and description of patients perceived as receiving inappropriate critical care.

OBJECTIVE: Medical interventions that do not offer the patient meaningful benefit due to inconsistency with prognoses are often considered "inappropriate" by clinicians. We described the clinical details and resource utilisation of patients who were assessed as receiving inappropriate treatment. DESIGN: Chart abstraction was performed on 123 patients who were assessed by their critical care physician as having received inappropriate treatment to document clinical characteristics, diagnostic testing, life-sustaining treatments and nursing assessments of daily pain and level of consciousness. RESULTS: The mean age was 67 and on admission, 41% had cancer and 25% had advanced pulmonary disease. At least one of the following three conditions was noted in 57% of the patients: severe neurological injury, overwhelming sepsis or irreversible respiratory failure. Patients were less likely to be alert (OR 0.39, CI 0.16-0.91, p = 0.03) on days they were assessed as receiving inappropriate critical care. After they were assessed as receiving inappropriate critical care, they received 172 imaging studies, 151 procedures, 522 days of mechanical ventilation (excludes one patient who received 1020 days of mechanical ventilation), 254 days of vasopressors, 226 days of hemodialysis and 10 attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients assessed as receiving inappropriate critical care receive resource-intensive medical care, largely while non-alert.

Understanding Factors Contributing to Inappropriate Critical Care: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Medical Record Documentation.

BACKGROUND: Factors leading to inappropriate critical care, that is treatment that should not be provided because it does not offer the patient meaningful benefit, have not been rigorously characterized. OBJECTIVE: We explored medical record documentation about patients who received inappropriate critical care and those who received appropriate critical care to examine factors associated with the provision of inappropriate treatment. DESIGN: Medical records were abstracted from 123 patients who were assessed as receiving inappropriate treatment and 66 patients who were assessed as receiving appropriate treatment but died within six months of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We used mixed methods combining qualitative analysis of medical record documentation with multivariable analysis to examine the relationship between patient and communication factors and the receipt of inappropriate treatment, and present these within a conceptual model. SETTING: One academic health system. RESULTS: Medical records revealed 21 themes pertaining to prognosis and factors influencing treatment aggressiveness. Four themes were independently associated with patients receiving inappropriate treatment according to physicians. When decision making was not guided by physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.76, confidence interval [95% CI] 1.21-11.70) or was delayed by patient/family (OR 4.52, 95% CI 1.69-12.04), patients were more likely to receive inappropriate treatment. Documented communication about goals of care (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.84) and patient's preferences driving decision making (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00-0.27) were associated with lower odds of receiving inappropriate treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Medical record documentation suggests that inappropriate treatment occurs in the setting of communication and decision-making patterns that may be amenable to intervention.

Concordance of Nurses and Physicians on Whether Critical Care Patients are Receiving Futile Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Nurses and physicians often describe critical care that is not expected to provide meaningful benefit to a patient as futile, and providing treatments perceived as futile is associated with moral distress. OBJECTIVE: To explore concordance of physicians' and nurses' assessments of futile critical care. METHODS: A focus group of clinicians developed a consensus definition of "futile" critical care. Daily for 3 months, critical care physicians and nurses in a health care system identified patients perceived to be receiving futile treatment. Assessments and patients' survival were compared between nurses and physicians. RESULTS: Nurses and physicians made 6254 shared assessments on 1086 patients. Nurses and physicians assessed approximately the same number of patients as receiving futile treatment (110 for nurses vs 113 for physicians, P = .82); however, concordance was low as to which patients were assessed as receiving futile treatment (κ = 0.46). The 110 patients categorized by nurses as receiving futile treatment had lower 6-month mortality than did the 113 patients so assessed by physicians (68% vs 85%, P = .005). Patients who were assessed as receiving futile treatment by both providers were more likely to die in the hospital than were patients assessed as receiving futile treatment by the nurse alone (76% vs 32%, P < .001) or by the physician alone (76% vs 57%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional concordance on provision of critical care perceived to be futile is low; however, joint predictions between physicians and nurses were most predictive of patients' outcomes, suggesting value in collaborative decision making.

Missed opportunities: use of an end-of-life symptom management order protocol among inpatients dying expected deaths.

BACKGROUND: When a patient is expected to die, the ideal plan of care focuses on comfort. Prior investigation of application of one institution's end-of-life symptom management order (ESMO) protocol suggested that comfort measures were often instituted too late and sometimes not at all. We studied patient factors associated with missed opportunities for use of an ESMO protocol and protocol adherence in order to identify areas for quality improvement. METHODS: We abstracted the terminal hospitalization medical record for all adult decedents hospitalized for at least 3 days between April 2005 and April 2006 (n = 496) at a university medical center. Detailed information was collected about ESMO use and opiate titration at the end of life. Among patients expected to die, we used multivariate logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with whether patients were placed on the ESMO protocol prior to death. RESULTS: Half of patients who died received ESMO protocol care (n = 248). All had documentation of a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order (a requirement of the protocol). An opiate drip was used for 95% of patients placed on the ESMO protocol and it was titrated up at least once for 67% of those patients. Patients had a mean of 4 opiate titrations, but for only a mean of 2.2 was a justification documented (symptom documentation is required for each titration per the protocol). In a multivariable regression accounting for other demographic, clinical and provider variables, uninsured patients (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.62), patients admitted from a nursing home (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30-0.99), and patients considered for transplant (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.85) were significantly less likely to be placed on the ESMO protocol prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of implementation of a standardized order set can identify areas for quality improvement and missed opportunities for use.