Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 250
Filtrar
1.
Am J Bioeth ; : 1-9, 2020 May 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32420822

RESUMO

During public health crises including the COVID-19 pandemic, resource scarcity and contagion risks may require health systems to shift-to some degree-from a usual clinical ethic, focused on the well-being of individual patients, to a public health ethic, focused on population health. Many triage policies exist that fall under the legal protections afforded by "crisis standards of care," but they have key differences. We critically appraise one of the most fundamental differences among policies, namely the use of criteria to categorically exclude certain patients from eligibility for otherwise standard medical services. We examine these categorical exclusion criteria from ethical, legal, disability, and implementation perspectives. Focusing our analysis on the most common type of exclusion criteria, which are disease-specific, we conclude that optimal policies for critical care resource allocation and the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) should not use categorical exclusions. We argue that the avoidance of categorical exclusions is often practically feasible, consistent with public health norms, and mitigates discrimination against persons with disabilities.

3.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 2020 Apr 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32299956

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Specialty wards cohort hospitalised patients to improve outcomes and lower costs. When demand exceeds capacity, patients overflow and are "bedspaced" to alternate wards. Some studies have demonstrated that bedspacing among medicine service patients is associated with adverse patient-centred outcomes, however, results have been inconsistent and have primarily been performed within national health systems. The objective of this study was to assess the association of bedspacing with patient-centred outcomes among United States patients admitted to general medicine services. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of internal medicine, family medicine and geriatric service patients who were bedspaced vs cohorted for the entirety of their hospital stay within three large, urban United States hospitals (quaternary referral centre, tertiary referral centre and community hospital, with different patient demographics and case-mixes) in 2014 and 2015. We performed quantile regression to determine differences in length of stay (LOS) between bedspaced vs cohorted patients and logistic regression for in-hospital mortality and discharge to home. RESULTS: Among 18 802 patients in 33 wards, 6119 (33%) patients were bedspaced. Bedspaced patients had significantly longer LOS compared with cohorted patients at the 25th (0.1 days, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.2, p=0.001), 50th (0.2 days, 95% CI: 0.1 to 0.3, p=0.003) and 75th (0.3 days, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.5, p<0.001) percentiles; and no statistically significant differences in odds of mortality (OR=0.9, 95% CI: 0.6 to 1.3, p=0.5) or discharge to home (OR=0.9, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.0, p=0.06) in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: Bedspacing is associated with adverse patient-centred outcomes. Future work is needed to confirm these findings, understand mechanisms contributing to adverse outcomes and identify factors that mitigate these adverse effects in order to provide high-value, patient-centred care to hospitalised patients.

5.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(3): e201742, 2020 Mar 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32227179

RESUMO

Importance: There is limited evidence regarding how patients make choices in advance directives (ADs) or whether these choices influence subsequent care. Objective: To examine whether default options in ADs influence care choices and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 515 patients who met criteria for having serious illness and agreed to participate. Patients were enrolled at 20 outpatient clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from February 2014 to April 2016 and had a median follow-up of 18 months. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to April 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to complete 1 of the 3 following ADs: (1) a comfort-promoting plan of care and nonreceipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (comfort AD), (2) a life-extending plan of care and receipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (life-extending AD), or (3) no choices were preselected (standard AD). Main Outcomes and Measures: This trial was powered to rule out a reduction in hospital-free days in the intervention groups. Secondary outcomes included choices in ADs for an overall comfort-oriented approach to care, choices to forgo 4 forms of life support, patients' quality of life, decision conflict, place of death, admissions to hospitals and intensive care units, and costs of inpatient care. Results: Among 515 patients randomized, 10 withdrew consent and 13 were later found to be ineligible, leaving 492 (95.5%) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) sample (median [interquartile range] age, 63 [56-70] years; 279 [56.7%] men; 122 [24.8%] black; 363 [73.8%] with cancer). Of these, 264 (53.7%) returned legally valid ADs and were debriefed about their assigned intervention. Among these, patients completing comfort ADs were more likely to choose comfort care (54 of 85 [63.5%]) than those returning standard ADs (45 of 91 [49.5%]) or life-extending ADs (33 of 88 [37.5%]) (P = .001). Among 492 patients in the mITT sample, 57 of 168 patients [33.9%] who completed the comfort AD, 47 of 165 patients [28.5%] who completed the standard AD, and 35 of 159 patients [22.0%] who completed the life-extending AD chose comfort care (P = .02), with patients not returning ADs coded as not selecting comfort care. In mITT analyses, median (interquartile range) hospital-free days among 168 patients assigned to comfort ADs and 159 patients assigned to life-extending default ADs were each noninferior to those among 165 patients assigned to standard ADs (standard AD: 486 [306-717] days; comfort AD: 554 [296-833] days; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23; P < .001; life-extending AD: 550 [325-783] days; rate ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P < .001). There were no differences among groups in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, default options in ADs altered the choices seriously ill patients made regarding their future care without changing clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02017548.

6.
Ann Intern Med ; 2020 Apr 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32259197

RESUMO

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic challenges hospital leaders to make time-sensitive, critical decisions about clinical operations and resource allocations. Objective: To estimate the timing of surges in clinical demand and the best- and worst-case scenarios of local COVID-19-induced strain on hospital capacity, and thus inform clinical operations and staffing demands and identify when hospital capacity would be saturated. Design: Monte Carlo simulation instantiation of a susceptible, infected, removed (SIR) model with a 1-day cycle. Setting: 3 hospitals in an academic health system. Patients: All people living in the greater Philadelphia region. Measurements: The COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model (CHIME) (http://penn-chime.phl.io) SIR model was used to estimate the time from 23 March 2020 until hospital capacity would probably be exceeded, and the intensity of the surge, including for intensive care unit (ICU) beds and ventilators. Results: Using patients with COVID-19 alone, CHIME estimated that it would be 31 to 53 days before demand exceeds existing hospital capacity. In best- and worst-case scenarios of surges in the number of patients with COVID-19, the needed total capacity for hospital beds would reach 3131 to 12 650 across the 3 hospitals, including 338 to 1608 ICU beds and 118 to 599 ventilators. Limitations: Model parameters were taken directly or derived from published data across heterogeneous populations and practice environments and from the health system's historical data. CHIME does not incorporate more transition states to model infection severity, social networks to model transmission dynamics, or geographic information to account for spatial patterns of human interaction. Conclusion: Publicly available and designed for hospital operations leaders, this modeling tool can inform preparations for capacity strain during the early days of a pandemic. Primary Funding Source: University of Pennsylvania Health System and the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center.

7.
PLoS One ; 15(2): e0228553, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32023311

RESUMO

IMPORTANCE: Medicare beneficiaries with high medical needs can benefit from Advance Care Planning (ACP). Medicare reimburses clinical providers for ACP discussions, but it is unknown whether high-need beneficiaries are receiving this service. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of billed ACP discussions among a cohort of high-need Medicare beneficiaries with the non-high-needs Medicare population. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) claims in 2017 comparing high-need beneficiaries (seriously ill, frail, ESRD, and disabled) with non-high need beneficiaries. SETTING: Nationally representative FFS Medicare 20% sample. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries were assigned to one of the following classifications: seriously ill (65+), frail (65+), seriously ill & frail (65+); non-high need (65+); end stage renal disease (ESRD) or disabled (<65). All participants had data available for years 2016-2017. EXPOSURE: Receipt of a billed ACP discussion, CPT codes 99497 or 99498. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Rates of billed ACP visits were compared between high-need patients and non-high-need patients. Rates were adjusted for the 65+ population for sex, age, race/ethnicity, Charlson comorbidity index, Medicare/Medicaid dual eligibility status, and Hospital Referral Region. RESULTS: Among the 65+ groups, those most likely to have a billed ACP discussion included seriously ill & frail (5.2%), seriously ill (4.2%), and frail (3.3%). Rates remained consistent after adjusting (4.5%, 4.0%, 3.1%, respectively). Each subgroup differed significantly (p < .05) from non-high need beneficiaries (2.3%) in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Among the <65 high need groups, the rates were 2.7% for ESRD and 1.3% for the disabled (the latter p < .05 compared with non-high needs). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While rates of billed ACP discussions varied among patient groups with high medical needs, overall they were relatively low, even among a cohort of patients for whom ACP may be especially relevant.


Assuntos
Planejamento Antecipado de Cuidados/estatística & dados numéricos , Planejamento Antecipado de Cuidados/normas , Current Procedural Terminology , Planos de Pagamento por Serviço Prestado/estatística & dados numéricos , Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicare/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos
8.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 201(7): 840-847, 2020 Apr 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31968182

RESUMO

Rationale: Gender gaps exist in academic leadership positions in critical care. Peer-reviewed publications are crucial to career advancement, and yet little is known regarding gender differences in authorship of critical care research.Objectives: To evaluate gender differences in authorship of critical care literature.Methods: We used a validated database of author gender to analyze authorship of critical care articles indexed in PubMed between 2008 and 2018 in 40 frequently cited journals. High-impact journals were defined as those in the top 5% of all journals. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to evaluate the association of senior author gender with first and middle author gender, as well as association of first author gender with journal impact factor.Measurements and Main Results: Among 18,483 studies, 30.8% had female first authors, and 19.5% had female senior authors. Female authorship rose slightly over the last decade (average annual increases of 0.44% [P < 0.01] and 0.51% [P < 0.01] for female first and senior authors, respectively). When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially (first author adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.17; middle author aOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.29-1.69). Female first authors had higher odds than men of publishing in lower-impact journals (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45).Conclusions: Women comprise less than one-third of first authors and one-fourth of senior authors of critical care research, with minimal increase over the past decade. When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially. However, female first authors tend to publish in lower-impact journals. These findings may help explain the underrepresentation of women in critical care academic leadership positions and identify targets for improvement.

9.
AIDS Behav ; 2020 Jan 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31900813

RESUMO

Many people living with HIV (PLWHIV) state that they would be willing to take significant risks to be "cured" of the virus. However, how they interpret the word "cure" in this context is not clear. We used a randomized survey to examine whether PLWHIV had a different willingness to take a hypothetical HIV medication if it causes flu-like symptoms, but provides: (a) cure, (b) remission that was labeled "cure", or (c) remission. PLWHIV (n = 454) were more willing to take a medication that provided a "cure" versus a "remission" if the side effects lasted less than 1 year. PLWHIV were more willing to take a medication that provided a remission that was labeled "cure" versus a "remission" (p = 0.01) if the side effects lasted 2 weeks. Clinicians and researchers should be aware of the impact of the word "cure" and ensure that PLWHIV fully understand the possible outcomes of their treatment options.

10.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 201(7): 832-839, 2020 Apr 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31940238

RESUMO

Rationale: Admissions to ICUs are common during terminal hospitalizations, but little is known about how ICU care affects the end-of-life experience for patients dying in hospitals and their families.Objectives: We measured the association between ICU care during terminal hospitalization and family ratings of end-of-life care for patients who died in 106 Veterans Affairs hospitals from 2010 to 2016.Methods: Patients were divided into four categories: no-ICU care, ICU-only care, mixed care (died outside ICU), and mixed care (died in ICU). Multivariable linear probability models were adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. Patients receiving mixed care were also analyzed based on percentage of time in ICU.Measurements and Main Results: Of 57,550 decedents, 28,062 (48.8%) had a survey completed by a family member or close contact. In adjusted models, ICU-only care was associated with more frequent optimal ratings than no-ICU care, including overall excellent care (56.6% vs. 48.1%; P < 0.001), care consistent with preferences (78.7% vs. 72.4%; P < 0.001), and having pain controlled (51.3% vs. 46.7%; P < 0.001). Among patients with mixed care, increasing ICU time was associated with higher ratings on these same measures (all P < 0.001 for comparisons of those spending >75% time in ICU vs. ≤25% time).Conclusions: Among hospital decedents, ICU care was associated with higher family ratings of quality of end-of-life care than ward care. Reducing ICU use among hospital decedents may not improve end-of-life quality, and efforts to understand how ICU care improves end-of-life quality could help provide better care outside ICUs.

11.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 17(1): 81-88, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31581801

RESUMO

Rationale: Increasing intensive care unit (ICU) beds and the critical care workforce are often advocated to address an aging and increasingly medically complex population. However, reducing potentially preventable ICU stays may be an alternative to ensure adequate capacity.Objectives: To determine the proportions of ICU admissions meeting two definitions of being potentially preventable using nationally representative U.S. claims databases.Methods: We analyzed claims from 2006 to 2015 from all Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries and from a large national payer offering a private insurance (PI) plan and a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan. Potentially preventable hospitalizations were identified using existing definitions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) and life-limiting malignancies (LLMs).Results: We analyzed 420,369,434 person-years of insurance coverage, during which there were 99,793,416 acute inpatient hospitalizations, of which 16,646,977 (16.7%) were associated with an ICU admission. Of these, the proportions with an ACSC were 12.9%, 12.7%, and 15.8%, and with an LLM were 5.2%, 5.4%, and 6.4%, among those with PI, MA, and FFS, respectively. Over 10 years, the absolute percentages of ACSC-associated ICU stays declined (PI = -1.1%, MA -6.4%, FFS -6.4%; all P < 0.001 for all trends). Smaller changes were noted among LLM-associated ICU stays, declining in the MA cohort (-0.8%) and increasing in the FFS (+0.3%) and PI (+0.2%) populations (P < 0.001 for all trends).Conclusions: An appreciable proportion of U.S. ICU admissions may be preventable with community-based interventions. Investment in the outpatient infrastructure required to prevent these ICU admissions should be considered as a complementary, if not alternative, strategy to expanding ICU capacity to meet future demand.

12.
Ann Emerg Med ; 75(2): 171-180, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31248675

RESUMO

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms are intended to help prevent the provision of unwanted medical interventions among patients with advanced illness or frailty who are approaching the end of life. We seek to evaluate how POLST form completion, treatment limitations, or both influence intensity of treatment among patients who present to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults who presented to the ED at an academic medical center in Oregon between April 2015 and October 2016. POLST form completion and treatment limitations were the main exposures. Primary outcome was hospital admission; secondary outcomes included ICU admission and a composite measure of aggressive treatment. RESULTS: A total of 26,128 patients were included; 1,769 (6.8%) had completed POLST forms. Among patients with POLST, 52.1% had full treatment orders, and 6.4% had their forms accessed before admission. POLST form completion was not associated with hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.12), ICU admission (aOR=0.82; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22), or aggressive treatment (aOR=1.06; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.51). Compared with POLST forms with full treatment orders, those with treatment limitations were not associated with hospital admission (aOR=1.12; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.37) or aggressive treatment (aOR=0.87; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.52), but were associated with lower odds of ICU admission (aOR=0.31; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.61). CONCLUSION: Among patients presenting to the ED with POLST, the majority of POLST forms had orders for full treatment and were not accessed by emergency providers. These findings may partially explain why we found no association of POLST with treatment intensity. However, treatment limitations on POLST forms were associated with reduced odds of ICU admission. Implementation and accessibility of POLST forms are crucial when considering their effect on the provision of treatment consistent with patients' preferences.

13.
Ann Surg ; 271(3): 484-493, 2020 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30499797

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of standardizing operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs in a mixed surgical population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Standardizing OR to ICU handoffs improves information transfer after cardiac surgery, but there is limited evidence in other surgical contexts. METHODS: This prospective interventional cohort study (NCT02267174) was conducted in 2 surgical ICUs in 2 affiliated hospitals. From 2014 to 2016, we developed, implemented, and assessed the effectiveness of a new standardized handoff protocol requiring bedside clinician communication using an information template. The primary study outcome was number of information omissions out of 13 possible topics, recorded by trained observers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and multivariable regression. RESULTS: We observed 165 patient transfers (68 pre-, 97 postintervention). Before standardization, observed handoffs had a mean 4.7 ±â€Š2.9 information omissions each. After standardization, information omissions decreased 21.3% to 3.7 ±â€Š1.9 (P = 0.023). In a pre-specified subanalysis, information omissions for new ICU patients decreased 36.2% from 4.7 ±â€Š3.1 to 3.0 ±â€Š1.6 (P = 0.008, interaction term P = 0.008). The decrement in information omissions was linearly associated with the number of protocol steps followed (P < 0.001). After controlling for patient stability, the intervention was still associated with reduced omissions. Handoff duration increased after standardization from 4.1 ±â€Š3.3 to 8.0 ±â€Š3.9 minutes (P < 0.001). ICU mortality and length of stay did not change postimplementation. CONCLUSION: Standardizing OR to ICU handoffs significantly improved information exchange in 2 mixed surgical ICUs, with a concomitant increase in handoff duration. Additional research is needed to identify barriers to and facilitators of handoff protocol adherence.

16.
JAMA Netw Open ; 2(11): e1914471, 2019 Nov 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31675087

RESUMO

Importance: Although advance care planning is known to increase patient and caregiver satisfaction, its association with health care utilization is not well understood. Objective: To examine the association between billed advance care planning encounters and subsequent health care utilization among seriously ill patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study conducted from October 1, 2015, to May 31, 2018, used a national commercial insurance claims database to retrieve data from 18 484 Medicare Advantage members 65 years or older who had a claim that contained a serious illness diagnosis. Exposure: A claim that contained an advance care planning billing code between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of intensive therapies, hospitalization, emergency department use, hospice use, costs, and death during the 6-month follow-up period. Results: The final study sample included 18 484 seriously ill patients (mean [SD] age, 79.7 [7.9] years; 10 033 [54.3%] female), 864 (4.7%) of whom had a billed advanced care planning encounter between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. In analyses adjusted for patient characteristics and a propensity score for advance care planning, the presence of a billed advance care planning encounter was associated with a higher likelihood of hospice enrollment (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.52; 95% CI, 2.22-2.86) and mortality (hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.79-2.88) compared with no billed advance care planning encounter. Although patients with billed advance care planning encounters were also more likely to be hospitalized (IRR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.49), including in the intensive care unit (IRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.08-1.45), they were less likely to receive any intensive therapies (IRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92), such as chemotherapy (IRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78). Similar results were observed in a propensity score-matched analysis (99% matched) and in a decedent analysis of patients who died during the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with billed advance care planning encounters were more likely than those without these encounters to receive hospice services and less likely to receive any intensive therapies, such as chemotherapy. However, they were also hospitalized more frequently than patients without billed advance care planning encounters. Although these findings were robust to multiple analytic methods, the results may be attributable to residual confounding because of a higher unmeasured severity of illness in the advance care planning group. Additional evidence appears to be needed to understand the effect of advance care planning on these outcomes.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA