Dataset Information

End-of-life perceptions among physicians in intensive care units managed by anesthesiologists in Germany: a survey about structure, current implementation and deficits.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Structural aspects and current practice about end-of-life (EOL) decisions in German intensive care units (ICUs) managed by anesthesiologists are unknown. A survey among intensive care anesthesiologists has been conducted to explore current practice, barriers and opinions on EOL decisions in ICU.

Methods

In November 2015, all members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and the Association of German Anesthesiologists (BDA) were asked to participate in an online survey to rate the presence or absence and the importance of 50 items. Answers were grouped into three categories considering implementation and relevance: Category 1 reflects high implementation and high relevance, Category 2 low and low, and Category 3 low and high.

Results

Five-hundred and forty-one anesthesiologists responded. Only four items reached ≥90% agreement as being performed "yes, always" or "mostly", and 29 items were rated "very" or "more important". A profound discrepancy between current practice and attributed importance was revealed. Twenty-eight items attributed to Category 1, six to Category 2 and sixteen to Category 3. Items characterizing the most urgent need for improvement (Category 3) referred to patient outcome data, preparation of health care directives and interdisciplinary discussion, standard operating procedures, implementation of practical instructions and inclusion of nursing staff and families in the process.

Conclusion

The present survey affirms an urgent need for improvement in EOL practice in German ICUs focusing on advanced care planning, distinct aspects of changing goals of care, implementation of standard operating procedures, continuing education and reporting of outcome data.

SUBMITTER: Weiss M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5504988 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPain, agitation-sedation and delirium management are crucial elements in the care of critically ill patients. In the present study, we aimed to present the current practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the gap between physicians' perception and actual clinical performance.MethodsWe sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Association of Critical Care Physicians. Finally, 24 ICUs (14 general-, 5 neuroscience-, 3 surgical-, and 2 emergency-ICUs) from 20 hospitals participated in this one-day point prevalence study combined with an on-site questionnaire survey. We enrolled adult ICU admitted patients with a length of stay ?24?h, who were divided into the brain-injured group or non-brain-injured group. The hospital records and nursing records during the 24-h period prior to enrollment were reviewed. Actual evaluations of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium were documented. We invited physicians on-duty during the 24?h prior to the patients' enrollment to complete a survey questionnaire, which contained attitude for importance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments.ResultsWe enrolled 387 patients including 261 (67.4%) brain-injured and 126 (32.6%) non-brain-injured patients. There were 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.9-23.9%) and 25.6% (95% CI: 21.2-29.9%) patients receiving the pain and agitation-sedation scale assessment, respectively. The rates of these two types of assessments were significantly lower in brain-injured patients than non-brain-injured patients (p?=?0.003 and?<?0.001). Delirium assessment was only performed in three patients (0.8, 95% CI: 0.1-1.7%). In questionnaires collected from 91 physicians, 70.3% (95% CI: 60.8-79.9%) and 82.4% (95% CI: 74.4-90.4%) reported routine use of pain and agitation-sedation scale assessments, respectively. More than half of the physicians (52.7, 95% CI: 42.3-63.2%) reported daily screening for delirium using an assessment scale.ConclusionsThe actual prevalence of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessment, especially delirium screening, was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. There is a gap between physicians' perceptions and actual clinical practice in pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. Our results will prompt further quality improvement projects to optimize the practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management in China.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about importance and implementation of end-of-life care (EOLC) in German intensive care units (ICU). This survey analyses preferences and differences in training between "medical" (internal medicine, neurology) and "surgical" (surgery, anaesthesiology) residents during intensive care rotation.MethodsThis is a point-prevalence study, in which intensive care medicine course participants of one educational course were surveyed. Physicians from multiple ICU and university as well as non-university hospitals and all care levels were asked to participate. The questionnaire was composed of a paper and an electronic part. Demographic and structural data were prompted and EOLC data (48 questions) were grouped into six categories considering importance and implementation: category 1 (important, always implemented), 2 (important, sometimes implemented), 3 (important, never implemented) and 4-6 (unimportant, implementation always, sometimes, never). The trial is registered at the "Deutsches Register für klinische Studien (DRKS)", Study number DRKS00026619, registered on September 10th 2021, www.drks.de .ResultsOverall, 194/ 220 (88%) participants responded. Mean age was 29.7 years, 55% were female and 60% had scant ICU working experience. There were 64% medical and 35% surgical residents. Level of care and size of ICU differed significantly between medical and surgical (both p < 0.001). Sufficient implementation was stated for 66% of EOLC questions, room for improvement (category 2 and 3) was seen in 25, and 8% were classified as irrelevant (category 6). Areas with the most potential for improvement included prognosis and outcome and patient autonomy. There were no significant differences between medical and surgical residents.ConclusionsEven though EOLC is predominantly regarded as sufficiently implemented in German ICU of all specialties, our survey unveiled still 25% room for improvement for medical as well as surgical ICU residents. This is important, as areas of improvement potential may be addressed with reasonable effort, like individualizing EOLC procedures or setting up EOLC teams. Health care providers as well as medical societies should emphasize EOLC training in their curricula.

Project description:BackgroundIn the context of sepsis and septic shock, coagulopathy often occurs due to the close relationship between coagulation and inflammation. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is the most severe and potentially fatal form. Anticoagulants used in prophylactic or therapeutic doses are discussed to potentially exert beneficial effects in patients with sepsis and/or SIC; however, due to the lack of evidence recent guidelines are limited to recommendations for drug prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), while treatment of SIC has not been addressed.MethodsIn order to determine the status quo of VTE prophylaxis as well as treatment of SIC in German intensive care units (ICU), we conducted a Germany-wide online survey among heads of ICUs from October 2019 to May 2020. In April 2020, the survey was supplemented by an additional block of questions on VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.ResultsA total of 67 senior doctors took part in the survey. The majority (n = 50; 74.6%) of the responses were from ICU under the direction of an anesthesiologist and/or a department of anesthesiology. Most of the participants worked either at a university hospital (n = 31; 47.8%) or an academic teaching hospital (n = 27; 40.3%). The survey results show a pronounced heterogeneity in clinical practice with respect to the prophylaxis of VTE as well as SIC treatment. In an exemplary case of pneumogenic sepsis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were by far the most frequently mentioned group of medications (n = 51; 76.1% of the responding ITS). In the majority of cases (n = 43; 64.2%), anti-FXa activity is not monitored with the use of LMWH in prophylaxis doses. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was listed as a strategy for VTE prophylaxis in 37.3% of the responses (n = 25). In an exemplary case of abdominal sepsis 54.5% of the participants (n = 36; multiple answers possible) stated the use of UFH or LMWH and UFH with dosage controlled by PTT is used on two participating ICUs. The anti-FXa activity under prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is monitored in 7 participating clinics (10.6%) in abdominal sepsis. Systematic screening for sepsis-associated coagulation disorders does not take place in most hospitals and patterns in the use of anticoagulants show significant variability between ICUs. In the case of COVID-19 patients, it is particularly noticeable that in three quarters of the participating ICUs the practice of drug-based VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment does not differ from that of non-COVID-19 patients.ConclusionThe heterogeneity of answers collected in the survey suggests that a systematic approach to this topic via clinical trials is urgently needed to underline individualized patient care with the necessary evidence.