Dataset Information

Variability of intensive care admission decisions for the very elderly.

ABSTRACT: Although increasing numbers of very elderly patients are requiring intensive care, few large sample studies have investigated ICU admission of very elderly patients. Data on pre triage by physicians from other specialities is limited. This observational cohort study aims at examining inter-hospital variability of ICU admission rates and its association with patients' outcomes. All patients over 80 years possibly qualifying for ICU admission who presented to the emergency departments (ED) of 15 hospitals in the Paris (France) area during a one-year period were prospectively included in the study. Main outcome measures were ICU eligibility, as assessed by the ED and ICU physicians; in-hospital mortality; and vital and functional status 6 months after the ED visit. 2646 patients (median age 86; interquartile range 83-91) were included in the study. 94% of participants completed follow-up (n?=?2495). 12.4% (n?=?329) of participants were deemed eligible for ICU admission by ED physicians and intensivists. The overall in-hospital and 6-month mortality rates were respectively 27.2% (n?=?717) and 50.7% (n?=?1264). At six months, 57.5% (n?=?1433) of patients had died or had a functional deterioration. Rates of patients deemed eligible for ICU admission ranged from 5.6% to 38.8% across the participating centers, and this variability persisted after adjustment for patients' characteristics. Despite this variability, we found no association between level of ICU eligibility and either in-hospital death or six-month death or functional deterioration. In France, the likelihood that a very elderly person will be admitted to an ICU varies widely from one hospital to another. Influence of intensive care admission on patients' outcome remains unclear.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00912600.

SUBMITTER: Boumendil A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3324496 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variability of intensive care admission decisions for the very elderly.

Boumendil Ariane A Angus Derek C DC Guitonneau Anne-Laure AL Menn Anne-Marie AM Ginsburg Christine C Takun Khalil K Davido Alain A Masmoudi Rafik R Doumenc Benoît B Pateron Dominique D Garrouste-Orgeas Maité M Somme Dominique D Simon Tabassome T Aegerter Philippe P Guidet Bertrand B

PloS one 20120411 4

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>Although increasing numbers of very elderly patients are requiring intensive care, few large sample studies have investigated ICU admission of very elderly patients. Data on pre triage by physicians from other specialities is limited. This observational cohort study aims at examining inter-hospital variability of ICU admission rates and its association with patients' outcomes. All patients over 80 years possibly qualifying for ICU admission who presented to the emergency depar ...[more]

PMID: 22509296

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of intensive care unit bed availability, distractors and choice framing on intensive care unit admission decisions.MethodsThis study was a randomized factorial trial using patient-based vignettes. The vignettes were deemed archetypical for intensive care unit admission or refusal, as judged by a group of experts. Intensive care unit physicians were randomized to 1) an increased distraction (intervention) or a control group, 2) an intensive care unit bed scarcity or nonscarcity (availability) setting, and 3) a multiple-choice or omission (status quo) vignette scenario. The primary outcome was the proportion of appropriate intensive care unit allocations, defined as concordance with the allocation decision made by the group of experts.ResultsWe analyzed 125 physicians. Overall, distractors had no impact on the outcome; however, there was a differential drop-out rate, with fewer physicians in the intervention arm completing the questionnaire. Intensive care unit bed availability was associated with an inappropriate allocation of vignettes deemed inappropriate for intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.47; 95%CI 1.19 - 5.11) but not of vignettes appropriate for intensive care unit admission. There was a significant interaction with the presence of distractors (p = 0.007), with intensive care unit bed availability being associated with increased intensive care unit admission of vignettes inappropriate for intensive care unit admission in the distractor (intervention) arm (OR = 9.82; 95%CI 2.68 - 25.93) but not in the control group (OR = 1.02; 95%CI 0.38 - 2.72). Multiple choices were associated with increased inappropriate allocation in comparison to the omission group (OR = 5.18; 95%CI 1.37 - 19.61).ConclusionIntensive care unit bed availability and cognitive biases were associated with inappropriate intensive care unit allocation decisions. These findings may have implications for intensive care unit admission policies.

Project description:BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) admission triage is performed routinely and is often based solely on clinical judgment, which could mask biases. A computerized algorithm to aid ICU triage decisions was developed to classify patients into the Society of Critical Care Medicine's prioritization system. In this study, we sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of this algorithm.MethodsNine senior physicians evaluated forty clinical vignettes based on real patients. The reference standard was defined as the priorities ascribed by two investigators with full access to patients' records. Agreement of algorithm-based priorities with the reference standard and with intuitive priorities provided by the physicians were evaluated. Correlations between algorithm prioritization and physicians' judgment of the appropriateness of ICU admissions in scarcity and nonscarcity settings were also evaluated. Validity was further assessed by retrospectively applying this algorithm to 603 patients with requests for ICU admission for association with clinical outcomes.ResultsAgreement between algorithm-based priorities and the reference standard was substantial, with a median ? of 0.72 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.52-0.77). Algorithm-based priorities demonstrated higher interrater reliability (overall ? 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.65; median percentage agreement 0.64, IQR 0.59-0.70) than physicians' intuitive prioritization (overall ? 0.51, 95% CI 0.47-0.55; median percentage agreement 0.49, IQR 0.44-0.56) (p = 0.001). Algorithm-based priorities were also associated with physicians' judgment of appropriateness of ICU admission (priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 vignettes would be admitted to the last ICU bed in 83.7%, 61.2%, 45.2%, and 16.8% of the scenarios, respectively; p < 0.001) and with actual ICU admission, palliative care consultation, and hospital mortality in the retrospective cohort.ConclusionsThis ICU admission triage algorithm demonstrated good reliability and validity. However, more studies are needed to evaluate a difference in benefit of ICU admission justifying the admission of one priority stratum over the others.

Project description:Although experts advocate that physicians should express empathy to support family members faced with difficult end-of-life decisions for incapacitated patients, it is unknown whether and how this occurs in practice.To determine whether clinicians express empathy during deliberations with families about limiting life support, to develop a framework to understand these expressions of empathy, and to determine whether there is an association between more empathic statements by clinicians and family satisfaction with communication.Multi-center, prospective study of audiotaped physician-family conferences in intensive care units of four hospitals in 2000-2002.We audiotaped 51 clinician-family conferences that addressed end-of-life decisions. We coded the transcripts to identify empathic statements and used constant comparative methods to categorize the types of empathic statements. We used generalized estimating equations to determine the association between empathic statements and family satisfaction with communication.There was at least one empathic statement in 66% (34/51) of conferences with a mean of 1.6 +/- 1.6 empathic statements per conference (range 0-8). We identified three main types of empathic statements: statements about the difficulty of having a critically ill loved one (31% of conferences), statements about the difficulty of surrogate decision-making (43% of conferences), and statements about the difficulty of confronting death (27% of conferences). Only 30% of empathic statements were in response to an explicit expression of emotion by family members. There was a significant association between more empathic statements and higher family satisfaction with communication (p = 0.04).Physicians vary considerably in the extent to which they express empathy to surrogates during deliberations about life support, with no empathic statements in one-third of conferences. There is an association between more empathic statements and higher family satisfaction with communication.

Dataset Information

Variability of intensive care admission decisions for the very elderly.

Publications

Variability of intensive care admission decisions for the very elderly.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets