Dataset Information

Protocol for a randomised trial of an interprofessional team-delivered intervention to support surrogate decision-makers in ICUs.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Although shortcomings in clinician-family communication and decision making for incapacitated, critically ill patients are common, there are few rigorously tested interventions to improve outcomes. In this manuscript, we present our methodology for the Pairing Re-engineered Intensive Care Unit Teams with Nurse-Driven Emotional support and Relationship Building (PARTNER 2) trial, and discuss design challenges and their resolution. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the PARTNER 2 intervention to usual care among 690 incapacitated, critically ill patients and their surrogates in five ICUs in Pennsylvania. Eligible subjects will include critically ill patients at high risk of death and/or severe long-term functional impairment, their main surrogate decision-maker and their clinicians. The PARTNER intervention is delivered by the interprofessional ICU team and overseen by 4-6 nurses from each ICU. It involves: (1) advanced communication skills training for nurses to deliver support to surrogates throughout the ICU stay; (2) deploying a structured family support pathway; (3) enacting strategies to foster collaboration between ICU and palliative care services and (4) providing intensive implementation support to each ICU to incorporate the family support pathway into clinicians' workflow. The primary outcome is surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication during the ICU stay as assessed by telephone at 6-month follow-up. Prespecified secondary outcomes include surrogates' scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Impact of Event Scale, the modified Patient Perception of Patient Centredness scale, the Decision Regret Scale, nurses' scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory, and length of stay during and costs of the index hospitalisation.We also discuss key methodological challenges, including determining the optimal level of randomisation, using existing staff to deploy the intervention and maximising long-term follow-up of participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:We obtained ethics approval through the University of Pittsburgh, Human Research Protection Office. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02445937.

SUBMITTER: Lincoln T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7170558 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protocol for a randomised trial of an interprofessional team-delivered intervention to support surrogate decision-makers in ICUs.

Lincoln Taylor T Shields Anne-Marie AM Buddadhumaruk Praewpannarai P Chang Chung-Chou H CH Pike Francis F Chen Hsiangyu H Brown Elke E Kozar Veronica V Pidro Caroline C Kahn Jeremy M JM Darby Joseph M JM Martin Susan S Angus Derek C DC Arnold Robert M RM White Douglas B DB

BMJ open 20200329 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Although shortcomings in clinician-family communication and decision making for incapacitated, critically ill patients are common, there are few rigorously tested interventions to improve outcomes. In this manuscript, we present our methodology for the Pairing Re-engineered Intensive Care Unit Teams with Nurse-Driven Emotional support and Relationship Building (PARTNER 2) trial, and discuss design challenges and their resolution.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>This is a pragmat ...[more]

PMID: 32229520

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesOptimistic expectations about prognosis by surrogate decision-makers in ICUs are common, but there are few data about the causes and clinical consequences. Our objective was to determine the causes of optimistic expectations about prognosis among surrogates and whether it is associated with more use of life support at the end of life.DesignProspective, multicenter cohort study from 2009 to 2012.SettingTwelve ICUs from multiple regions of the United States.SubjectsThe surrogates and physicians of 275 incapacitated ICU patients at high risk of death.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsSurrogates and physicians completed a validated instrument assessing their prognostic expectations for hospital survival. We determined the proportion of surrogates with optimistic expectations, defined as a prognostic estimate that was at least 20% more optimistic than the physician's, then determined how frequently this arose from surrogates miscomprehending the physicians' prognosis versus holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. We used multivariable regression to examine whether optimistic expectations were associated with length of stay, stratified by survival status, and time to withdrawal of life support among nonsurvivors. Overall, 45% of surrogates (95% CI, 38-51%) held optimistic expectations about prognosis, which arose from a combination of misunderstanding the physician's prognostic expectations and from holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. Optimistic expectations by surrogates were associated with significantly longer duration of ICU treatment among nonsurvivors before death (β coefficient = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; p = 0.027), corresponding to a 56% longer ICU stay. This difference was associated with a significantly longer time to withdrawal of life support among dying patients whose surrogates had optimistic prognostic expectations compared with those who did not (β coefficient = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.16-1.07; p = 0.009).ConclusionsThe prevalent optimism about prognosis among surrogates in ICUs arises both from surrogates' miscomprehension of physicians' prognostications and from surrogates holding more hopeful beliefs. This optimism is associated with longer duration of life support at the end of life.

Project description:Individuals acting as surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients frequently struggle in this role and experience high levels of long-term psychological distress. Prior interventions designed to improve the sharing of information by the clinical team with surrogate decision makers have demonstrated little effect on surrogates' outcomes or clinical decisions. In this report, we describe the study protocol and corresponding intervention fidelity monitoring plan for a multicenter randomized clinical trial testing the impact of a multifaceted surrogate support intervention (Four Supports) on surrogates' psychological distress, the quality of decisions about goals of care, and healthcare use. We will randomize the surrogates of 300 incapacitated critically ill patients at high risk of death and/or severe long-term functional impairment to receive the Four Supports intervention or an education control. The Four Supports intervention adds to the intensive care unit (ICU) team a trained interventionist (family support specialist) who delivers four types of protocolized support-emotional support; communication support; decisional support; and, if indicated, anticipatory grief support-to surrogates through daily interactions during the ICU stay. The primary outcome is surrogates' symptoms of anxiety and depression at 6-month follow-up, measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Prespecified secondary outcome measures are the Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness Scale (modified for use with surrogates) and Impact of Event Scale scores at 3- and 6-month follow-up, respectively, together with ICU and hospital lengths of stay and total hospital cost among decedents. The fidelity monitoring plan entails establishing and measuring adherence to the intervention using multiple measurement methods, including daily checklists and coding of audiorecorded encounters. This approach to intervention fidelity may benefit others designing and testing behavioral interventions in the ICU setting. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01982877).

Project description:BackgroundSurrogate decision makers of stroke patients are often unprepared to make critical decisions on life-sustaining treatments. We describe the development process and key features for the Understanding Stroke web-based decision support tool.MethodsWe used multiple strategies to develop a patient-centered, tailored decision aid. We began by forming a Patient and Family Advisory Council to provide continuous input to our multidisciplinary team on the development of the tool. Additionally, focus groups consisting of nurses, therapists, social workers, physicians, stroke survivors, and family members reviewed key elements of the tool, including prognostic information, graphical displays, and values clarification exercise. To design the values clarification exercise, we asked focus groups to provide feedback on a list of important activities of daily living. An ordinal prognostic model was developed for ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage using data taken from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive Plus, and incorporated into the tool.ResultsFocus group participants recommended making numeric prognostic information optional due to possible emotional distress. Pie charts were generally favored by participants for graphical presentation of prognostic information, though a horizontal stacked bar chart was also added due to its prevalence in stroke literature. Plain language descriptions of the modified Rankin Scale were created to accompany the prognostic information. A values clarification exercise was developed consisting of a list of 13 situations that may make an individual consider comfort measures only. The final version of the web based tool (which can be viewed on tablets) included the following sections: general introduction to stroke, outcomes (prognostic information and recovery), in-hospital and life-sustaining treatments, decision making and values clarification, post-hospital care, tips for talking to the health care team, and a summary report. Preliminary usability testing received generally favorable feedback.ConclusionWe developed Understanding Stroke, a tailored decision support tool for surrogate decision makers of stroke patients. The tool was well received and will be formally pilot tested in a group of stroke surrogate decision makers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03427645 ).

Project description:IntroductionShared decision making is endorsed by guidelines for both acute kidney injury and critical care medicine. However, there is still a huge need for effective interventions, especially those focusing on decisions about renal replacement therapy for intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute kidney injury. The decision aids provide evidence-based support for shared decision making, to achieve better decisions through enhanced knowledge of treatment options and treatment aligns with patients' preferences and values. Therefore, our objectives are to develop and evaluate a decision aid systematically and rigorously for family surrogate decision makers of ICU patients with acute kidney injury who need renal replacement therapy.Methods and analysisWe will use a systematic development process that focuses on user-centred design to develop and evaluate the decision aid in three phases: (1) development of a draft prototype for the decision aid based on extensive literature reviews, interviews with key stakeholders and evidence synthesis; (2) alpha testing ('near live' usability) the decision aid during simulated clinical encounters to test its comprehensibility, acceptability and usability and (3) beta testing ('live' usability) to examine the aid's clinical feasibility. User testing will be conducted using mixed-methods approach to support iterative revision of the decision aid. The IPDASi (V.4.0) will be used for following qualitative assessment. All interviews will be analysed by Colaizzi's seven-step approach to qualitative analysis. The coding scheme will use to analyse user interactions. Questionnaire surveys will be analysed using paired sample t-tests when related to the before-and-after survey, otherwise using one-sample t-test.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this research was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University, PLA (Ref: KY2020104). All participants will sign a formal informed consent form. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and reported in appropriate meetings.Trial registration numberChiCTR2000031613.

Project description:BackgroundPromising health interventions tested in pilot studies will only achieve population-wide impact if they are implemented at scale across communities and health systems. Scaling up effective health interventions is vital as not doing so denies the community the most effective services and programmes. However, there remains a paucity of practical tools to assess the suitability of health interventions for scale-up. The Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool (ISAT) was developed to support policy-makers and practitioners to make systematic assessments of the suitability of health interventions for scale-up.MethodsThe ISAT was developed over three stages; the first stage involved a literature review to identify similar tools and frameworks that could be used to guide scalability assessments, and expert input to develop draft ISAT content. In the second stage, the draft ISAT tool was tested with end users. The third stage involved revising and re-testing the ISAT with end users to further refine the language and structure of the final ISAT.ResultsA variety of information and sources of evidence should be used to complete the ISAT. The ISAT consists of three parts. Part A: 'setting the scene' requires consideration of the context in which the intervention is being considered for scale-up and consists of five domains, as follows: (1) the problem; (2) the intervention; (3) strategic/political context; (4) evidence of effectiveness; and (5) intervention costs and benefits. Part B asks users to assess the potential implementation and scale-up requirements within five domains, namely (1) fidelity and adaptation; (2) reach and acceptability; (3) delivery setting and workforce; (4) implementation infrastructure; and (5) sustainability. Part C generates a graphical representation of the strengths and weaknesses of the readiness of the proposed intervention for scale-up. Users are also prompted for a recommendation as to whether the intervention (1) is recommended for scale-up, (2) is promising but needs further information before scaling up, or (3) does not yet merit scale-up.ConclusionThe ISAT fills an important gap in applied scalability assessment and can become a critical decision support tool for policy-makers and practitioners when selecting health interventions for scale-up. Although the ISAT is designed to be a health policy and practitioner tool, it can also be used by researchers in the design of research to fill important evidence gaps.

Project description:Rationale: Breakdowns in clinician-family communication in intensive care units (ICUs) are common, yet there are no easily scaled interventions to prevent this problem.Objectives: To assess the feasibility, usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness of a communication intervention that pairs proactive family meetings with an interactive, web-based tool to help surrogates prepare for clinician-family meetings.Methods: We conducted a two-arm, single-blind, patient-level randomized trial comparing the Family Support Tool with enhanced usual care in two ICUs in a tertiary-care hospital. Eligible participants included surrogates of incapacitated patients judged by their physicians to have ≥40% risk of death or severe long-term functional impairment. The intervention group received unlimited tool access, with prompts to complete specific content upon enrollment and before two scheduled family meetings. Before family meetings, research staff shared with clinicians a one-page summary of surrogates' main questions, prognostic expectations, beliefs about the patient's values, and attitudes about goals of care. The comparator group received usual care enhanced with scheduled family meetings. Feasibility outcomes included the proportion of participants who accessed the tool before the first family meeting, mean number of logins, and average tool engagement time. We assessed tool usability with the System Usability Scale, assessed tool acceptability and perceived effectiveness with internally developed questionnaires, and assessed quality of communication and shared decision-making using the Quality of Communication questionnaire.Results: Of 182 screened patients, 77 were eligible. We enrolled 52 (67.5%) patients and their primary surrogate. Ninety-six percent of intervention surrogates (24/25) accessed the tool before the first family meeting (mean engagement time, 62 min ± 27.7) and logged in 4.2 times (±2.1) on average throughout the hospitalization. Surrogates reported that the tool was highly usable (mean, 82.4/100), acceptable (mean, 4.5/5 ± 0.9), and effective (mean, 4.4/5 ± 0.2). Compared with the control group, surrogates who used the tool reported higher overall quality of communication (mean, 8.9/10 ± 1.6 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4) and higher quality in shared decision-making (mean, 8.7/10 ± 1.5 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4), but the difference did not reach statistical significance.Conclusions: It is feasible to deploy an interactive web-based tool to support communication and shared decision-making for surrogates in ICUs. Surrogates and clinicians rated the tool as highly usable, acceptable, and effective.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough family members of incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker, there are no low-cost, easily-scaled interventions to address this problem.Aim of the studyTo develop and pilot-test the Family Support Tool, an interactive, web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs.Material and methodsWe used a mixed methods, user-centered process to create the Family Support Tool, including: 1) creation of a preliminary design by an expert panel; 2) engagement of a key stakeholder panel to iteratively refine the preliminary design; 3) user testing of a low-fidelity prototype of the tool by 6 former ICU surrogates; 4) creation of a web-based prototype; and 5) user testing of the web-based prototype with 14 surrogates and ICU physicians, including semi-structured interviews and quantitative measurement of usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness.ResultsThe initial design contained a collection of videos and exercises designed to help individuals understand the surrogate's role and think through the patient's values and preferences. Based on family stakeholders' feedback about the emotional overwhelm they experience early in an ICU stay, we redesigned the tool to be viewed in sections, with the first section focused on decreasing surrogates' emotional distress, and later sections focused on helping surrogates prepare for family meetings. Surrogates actively making decisions in the ICU judged the final tool to be highly usable (mean summary score 83.5, correlating to 95th percentile when normalized to devices of its type), acceptable (mean 4.2 +/- 0.5 out of 5), and effective (mean 4.3 +/- 0.6 out of 5). All surrogates reported the tool helped them consider goals of care and all indicated they would recommend the tool to a friend.ConclusionsWe successfully developed a web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs that has high potential for scalability. Surrogates judged the tool to be usable, acceptable, and effective. These data support proceeding to test the tool in a pilot randomized clinical trial.

Dataset Information

Protocol for a randomised trial of an interprofessional team-delivered intervention to support surrogate decision-makers in ICUs.

Publications

Protocol for a randomised trial of an interprofessional team-delivered intervention to support surrogate decision-makers in ICUs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets