Patient, Family, and Physician Satisfaction With Planning for Direct Discharge to Home From Intensive Care Units: Direct From ICU Sent Home Study.

BACKGROUND: In the new era of decreasing hospital bed availability, there is an increasing rate of direct discharge to home (DDH) from intensive care units (ICUs), despite sparse literature informing this practice. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient, family, and ICU attending physician satisfaction with planning for DDH from the ICU and intensivists' current DDH practices and perceptions. METHODS: Prospective cohort study, using convenience sampling, of adult patients undergoing DDH from an ICU between February 2016 and February 2017 using a modified FS-ICU 24 satisfaction survey completed by patients, family members, and attending physicians at the time of patient discharge to home from the ICU. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of patients, 37% of family members, and 100% of ICU physicians recruited completed the survey. A majority of patients (89%) and families (78%) were satisfied or very satisfied with DDH. Only 6% of patients and 8% of families were dissatisfied to very dissatisfied with DDH. Conversely, ICU physician satisfaction varied, with only 5% being very comfortable with DDH and the majority (50%) only somewhat comfortable. Twenty percent of staff consultants were uncomfortable to very uncomfortable with the practice of DDH. Thirty-one percent of staff physician respondents felt that patient and family discomfort would be barriers to DDH. Compared to physicians and other allied health professionals, nurses were identified as the most helpful members of the health-care team in preparation for DDH by 98% of patients and 92% of family members. The DDH rates have increased for the past 12 years in our ICUs but declined during the study period (February 2016 to February 2017). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and family members are satisfied with the practice of DDH from ICU, although ICU physician satisfaction is more variable. Physician comfort may be improved by data informing which patients may be safely DDH from the ICU.

Survival and Safety Outcomes of ICU Patients Discharged Directly Home-A Direct From ICU Sent Home Study.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate outcomes (mortality, morbidity, unplanned return visits) of patients who are discharged directly to home from the ICU. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two tertiary care medical-surgical-trauma ICUs at Canadian hospitals over 1 year (February 2016-2017). SUBJECTS: All adult patients who were either discharged directly to home (Recruited and Nonrecruited cohorts) from ICU or discharged home within 24 hours after ward transfer (Ward Transfer cohort). INTERVENTIONS: Direct discharge home from ICU or discharge home within 24 hours of ward transfer from ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One-hundred ninety-eight patients were in the study, 100 patients in the discharged directly to home Recruited arm, 37 patients in the discharged directly to home Nonrecruited arm, and 61 patients in the Ward cohort. All three patient cohorts had 0% mortality at 8 weeks post discharge. The unplanned return visit rate for the Recruited cohort was 24% (emergency department 18%, Ward 4%, ICU 1%), whereas the rate for the Nonrecruited cohort was 52% (emergency department 34%, Ward 14%, ICU 3%) and the Ward Transfer cohort was 46% (emergency department 17%, Ward 26%, ICU 3%) (p = 0.005). No home support was available for 7% of the discharged directly to home Recruited cohort. Twenty-four percent of patients had funded home care nursing, but the majority of patients (81%) relied on help from friends/family. CONCLUSIONS: Recruited discharged directly to home patients experienced very good 8-week postdischarge outcomes with 0% mortality and a low rate of ICU readmission (1%) or ward readmission (4%), but not an insignificant rate of emergency department visits (18%). Recruited discharged directly to home patients had better outcomes compared with nonrecruited discharged directly to home patients and patients transferred briefly to the ward prior to discharge home. Future work should include derivation of a clinical prediction tool to identify patient characteristics that make discharged directly to home safe and a randomized control trial to compare discharged directly to home with short stay ward transfers.

Factors Associated With the Increasing Rates of Discharges Directly Home From Intensive Care Units-A Direct From ICU Sent Home Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between rates of discharge directly to home (DDH) from the intensive care unit (ICU) and bed availability (ward and ICU). Also to identify patient characteristics that make them candidates for safe DDH and describe transfer delay impact on length of stay (LOS). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who survived their stay in our medical-surgical-trauma ICU between April 2003 and March 2015. RESULTS: Median age was 49 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 33.5-60.4), and the majority of the patients were males (54.8%). Median number of preexisting comorbidities was 5 (IQR: 2-7) diagnoses. Discharge directly to home increased from 28 (3.1% of all survivors) patients in 2003 to 120 (12.5%) patients in 2014. The mean annual rate of DDH was between 11% and 12% over the last 6 years. Approximately 62% (n = 397) of patients waited longer than 4 hours for a ward bed, with a median delay of 2.0 days (IQR: 0.5-4.7) before being DDH. There was an inverse correlation between ICU occupancy and DDH rates ( rP = -.55, P < .0001, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.36 to -0.69, R2 = .29). There was no correlation with ward occupancy and DDH rates ( rs = -.055, P = .64, 95% CI = -0.25 to 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The DDH rates have been increasing over time at our institution and were inversely correlated with ICU bed occupancy but were not associated with ward occupancy. The DDH patients are young, have few comorbidities on admission, and few discharge diagnoses, which are usually reversible single system problems with low disease burden. Transfers to the ward are delayed in a majority of cases, leading to increased ICU LOS and likely increased overall hospital LOS as well.

A Pilot Randomized Trial Comparing Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation on Pressure Support Versus Proportional Assist Ventilation.

OBJECTIVES: Despite protocols incorporating spontaneous breathing trials, 31% of ICU patients experience difficult or prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation. Nonfatiguing modes such as pressure support ventilation are recommended. Proportional assist ventilation provides assistance in proportion to patient effort, which may optimize weaning. However, it is not known how proportional assist ventilation performs relative to pressure support ventilation over a prolonged period in the complex ICU setting. The purpose of this study was to compare the physiologic and clinical performance (failure rate), safety, and feasibility of protocols using daily spontaneous breathing trial plus pressure support ventilation versus proportional assist ventilation until ventilation discontinuation. DESIGN: Single-center, unblinded pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Medical-surgical ICU of a tertiary-care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients intubated greater than 36 hours were randomized if they met eligibility criteria for partial ventilatory support, tolerated pressure support ventilation greater than or equal to 30 minutes, and either failed or did not meet criteria for a spontaneous breathing trial. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to the pressure support ventilation or proportional assist ventilation protocol (PAV+, Puritan Bennett 840; Covidien, Boulder, CO). Both protocols used progressive decreases in level of assistance as tolerated, coupled with daily assessment for spontaneous breathing trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 54 patients randomized, outcome data are available for 50 patients; 27 were randomized to receive proportional assist ventilation and 23 to receive pressure support ventilation. There were no adverse events linked to the study interventions, and protocol violations were infrequent. Recruitment was slower than projected (1.3 patients per month). The median (interquartile range) time from randomization to successful extubation was 3.9 days (2.8-8.4 d) on proportional assist ventilation versus 4.9 days (2.9-26.3 d) on pressure support ventilation (p = 0.39). Time to live ICU discharge was 7.3 days (5.2-11.4 d) on proportional assist ventilation versus 12.4 days (7.5-30.8 d) on pressure support ventilation (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates the utility, safety, and feasibility of the weaning protocols and provides important information to guide the design of a future randomized controlled trial comparing weaning from mechanical ventilation on pressure support ventilation versus proportional assist ventilation.

Impact of intensive care unit discharge time on patient outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of nighttime intensive care unit (ICU) discharge on patient outcome. DESIGN: Multiple-center, retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Canadian hospitals. PATIENTS: We used a prospectively collected dataset containing information on 79,090 consecutive admissions from 31 Canadian community and teaching hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were categorized according to the time of ICU discharge into daytime (07:00-20:59) and nighttime (21:00-06:59). Admissions were excluded if the patients were a)