Time-Limited Trials for Patients With Critical Illness: A Review of the Literature.

TOPIC IMPORTANCE: Since the 1990s, time-limited trials have been described as an approach to navigate uncertain benefits and limits of life-sustaining therapies in patients with critical illness. In this review, we aim to synthesize the evidence on time-limited trials in critical care, establish what is known, and highlight important knowledge gaps. REVIEW FINDINGS: We identified 18 empirical studies and 15 ethical analyses about time-limited trials in patients with critical illness. Observational studies suggest time-limited trials are part of current practice in ICUs in the United States, but their use varies according to unit and physician factors. Some ICU physicians are familiar with, endorse, and have participated in time-limited trials, and some older adults appear to favor time-limited trial strategies over indefinite life-sustaining therapy or care immediately focused on comfort. When time-limited trials are used, they are often implemented incompletely and challenged by systematic barriers (eg, continually rotating ICU staff). Predictive modeling studies support prevailing clinical wisdom that prognostic uncertainty decreases over time in the ICU for some patients. One study prospectively comparing usual ICU care with an intervention designed to support time-limited trials yielded promising preliminary results. Ethical analyses describe time-limited trials as a pragmatic approach within the longstanding discussion about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapies. SUMMARY: Time-limited trials are endorsed by physicians, align with the priorities of some older adults, and are part of current practice. Substantial efforts are needed to test their impact on patient-centered outcomes, improve their implementation, and maximize their potential benefit.

Clinical Experience Is Not a Proxy for Competence: Comparing Fellow and Medical Student Performance in a Breaking Bad News Simulation-Based Mastery Learning Curriculum.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether traditional medical education ensures competence among fellows in the key skill of breaking bad news (BBN). While simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) has been used to train fourth-year medical students (M4s) in BBN, it is unclear if it adds similar value for fellows. OBJECTIVE: We examined the effect of traditional medical training on BBN skills by comparing baseline fellow and M4 skills and confidence and assessed the impact of a BBN SBML curriculum for fellows. METHODS: Fellows training in six programs at Northwestern University from November 2018 to May 2019 were eligible for inclusion. Fellows completed a BBN SBML curriculum including a pretest, individualized feedback using a previously published assessment tool, and ongoing deliberate practice until all achieved a minimum passing standard (MPS). The primary outcomes were checklist and scaled item scores on the assessment tool. Fellow performance was compared to a historical M4 cohort. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 38 eligible fellows completed the curriculum and were included for analysis. Fellows reported significantly more experience and confidence in BBN compared to M4s, yet their pre-training performance was significantly worse on checklist (57.1% vs 65.0%, P = .02) and scaled items; only 4% reached the MPS. After training, fellow performance significantly improved on checklist (57.1% to 92.6%, SD = 5.2%, P < .001) and scaled items; all reached the MPS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher confidence and BBN clinical experience, fellows performed worse than untrained M4s, confirming that experience is not a proxy for skill. Programs must develop competency-based assessments to ensure entrustment of communication skills.

The Duality of "Goals of Care" Language: A Qualitative Focus Group Study With Frontline Clinicians.

CONTEXT: The phrase "goals of care" (GOC) is common in serious illness care, yet it lacks clarity and consistency. Understanding how GOC is used across healthcare contexts is an opportunity to identify and mitigate root causes of serious illness miscommunication. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize frontline palliative and critical care clinicians' understanding and use of the phrase GOC in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a secondary qualitative thematic analysis of focus group transcripts (n = 10), gathered as part of a parent study of care delivery for patients with respiratory failure. Participants (n = 59) were members of the palliative and critical care interprofessional teams at two academic medical centers. RESULTS: Clinicians primarily use GOC as a shorthand signal among team members to indicate a patient is nearing the end of life. This signal can also indicate conflict with patients and families when clinicians' expectations-typically an expected "transition" toward a different type of care-are not met. Clinicians distinguish their clinical use of GOC from an "ideal" meaning of the phrase, which is broader than end of life and focused on patients' values. Palliative care specialists encourage other clinicians to shift toward the "ideal" GOC concept in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Frontline palliative and critical care clinicians understand a duality in GOC, as an idealized concept and as an expeditious signal for clinical care. Our findings suggest ambiguous phrases like GOC persist because of unmet needs for better ways to discuss and address diverse and complex priorities for patients with serious illness.

Patient-Centered and Family-Centered Care in the Intensive Care Unit.

Patient-centered and family-centered care (PFCC) is widely recognized as integral to high-quality health-care delivery. The highly technical nature of critical care puts patients and families at risk of dehumanization and renders the delivery of PFCC in the intensive care unit (ICU) challenging. In this article, we discuss the history and terminology of PFCC, describe interventions to promote PFCC, highlight limitations to the current model, and offer future directions to optimize PFCC in the ICU.

Evaluation of automated specialty palliative care in the intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Automated specialty palliative care consultation (SPC) has been proposed as an intervention to improve patient-centered care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Existing automated SPC trigger criteria are designed to identify patients at highest risk of in-hospital death. We sought to evaluate common mortality-based SPC triggers and determine whether these triggers reflect actual use of SPC consultation. We additionally aimed to characterize the population of patients who receive SPC without meeting mortality-based triggers. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult ICU admissions from 2012-2017 at an academic medical center with five subspecialty ICUs to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the five most common SPC triggers for predicting receipt of SPC. Among ICU admissions receiving SPC, we assessed differences in patients who met any SPC trigger compared to those who met none. RESULTS: Of 48,744 eligible admissions, 1,965 (4.03%) received SPC; 979 (49.82%) of consultations met at least 1 trigger. The sensitivity and specificity for any trigger predicting SPC was 49.82% and 79.61%, respectively. Patients who met no triggers but received SPC were younger (62.71 years vs 66.58 years, mean difference (MD) 3.87 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.44-5.30) p<0.001), had longer ICU length of stay (11.43 days vs 8.42 days, MD -3.01 days (95% CI -4.30 --1.72) p<0.001), and had a lower rate of in-hospital death (48.68% vs 58.12%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Mortality-based triggers for specialty palliative care poorly reflect actual use of SPC in the ICU. Reliance on such triggers may unintentionally overlook an important population of patients with clinician-identified palliative care needs.