Dataset Information

Physicians' perspective on potentially non-beneficial treatment when assessing patients with advanced disease for ICU admission: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The use of intensive care at the end of life can be high, leading to inappropriate healthcare utilisation, and prolonged suffering for patients and families. The objective of the study was to determine which factors influence physicians' admission decisions in situations of potentially non-beneficial intensive care.

Design

This is a secondary analysis of a qualitative study exploring the triage process. In-depth interviews were analysed using an inductive approach to thematic content analysis.

Setting

Data were collected in a Swiss tertiary care centre between March and June 2013.

Participants

12 intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and 12 internists routinely involved in ICU admission decisions.

Results

Physicians struggled to understand the request for intensive care for patients with advanced disease and full code status. Physicians considered patients' long-term vital and functional prognosis, but they also resorted to shortcuts, that is, a priori consensus about reasons for admitting a patient. Family pressure and unexpected critical events were determinants of admission to the ICU. Patient preferences, ICU physician's expertise and collaborative decision making facilitated refusal. Physicians were willing to admit a patient with advanced disease for a limited amount of time to fulfil a personal need.

Conclusions

In situations of potentially non-beneficial intensive care, the influence of shortcuts or context-related factors suggests that practice variations and inappropriate admission decisions are likely to occur. Institutional guidelines and timely goals of care discussions with patients with advanced disease and their families could contribute to ensuring appropriate levels of care.

SUBMITTER: Escher M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8144032 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals aged 65 and older face unique barriers to adoption of telehealth, and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has provided a "natural experiment" in how to meet the health needs of older patients remotely. Physician perspectives on practical considerations surrounding telehealth adoption, motivations of use, and reasons for nonuse are necessary to inform the future of healthcare delivery. The objective is to understand the experiences of physicians using telemedicine for older patients.MethodsFrom September to November 2020, we conducted 30-min semi-structured interviews using purposeful sampling to identify and enroll participants from diverse settings. We included 48 U.S.-based physicians (geriatrician, n = 18, primary care, n = 15, emergency, n = 15) from all geographic regions, rural-urban and academic/community settings. Audio-recorded interviews were professionally transcribed and analyzed using framework analysis. Major themes and subthemes were identified.ResultsParticipants had a median (interquartile range) age of 37.5 (34-44.5), 27 (56%) were women. Five major themes emerged: (1) telehealth uptake was rapid and iterative, (2) telehealth improved the safety of medical care, (3) use cases were specialty-specific (for geriatricians and primary care physicians telehealth substituted for in-person visits; for emergency physicians it primarily supplemented in-person visits), (4) physicians altered clinical care to overcome older patient barriers to telehealth use, and (5) telehealth use among physicians declined in mid-April 2020, due primarily to patient needs and administrator preferences, not physician factors.ConclusionIn this qualitative analysis, physicians reported a rapid, iterative uptake of telehealth and attenuation of use as coronavirus disease 2019 prevalence declined. Physician experiences during the pandemic can inform interventions and policies to help buoy telehealth for ongoing healthcare delivery and ensure its accessibility for older Americans.

Project description:BackgroundExamining the quality of life (QOL) of patients before ICU admission will allow outcome variables to be compared and analyzed in relation to it. The objective of this study was to analyze QOL of patients before admission to a surgical ICU and to study its relationship to outcome and to the baseline characteristics of the patients.MethodsAll adult patients consecutively admitted to the surgical ICU between November 2004 and April 2005, who underwent non-cardiac surgery, were enrolled in this observational and prospective study. The following patient characteristics were recorded: age, gender, body mass index, ASA physical status, type and magnitude of surgical procedure, length of stay (LOS), in ICU and in hospital, mortality, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS), history of co-morbidities and quality of life survey score (QOLSS). The relationships between QOLSS and ICU variables and outcome were evaluated. The relationship between the total QOLSS and each variable or outcome was assessed by multiple linear regression.ResultsOne hundred eighty seven patients completed the study. The preadmission QOLSS of the patients studied was 4.43 +/- 4.90; 28% of patients had a normal quality of life (0 points), 38% had between 1 and 5 points (considered mild deterioration), 21% had between 6 and 10 points (moderate deterioration), 10% had between 11 and 15 points (considered major deterioration) and 3% had more than 15 points (severe limitation of quality of life). A worse preadmission QOLSS was associated with higher SAPS II scores, with older patients (age> 65 years) and with ASA physical status (ASA III/IV). Total QOLSS was significantly worse in elderly patients and in patients with co-morbidities and in patients more severely ill at ICU admission. Patients who died in the ICU and in hospital had worse QOLSS scores compared to those who survived. However, no statistical differences in QOLSS were found in relation to longer ICU stays (ICU LOS).ConclusionPreadmission QOL correlates with age and severity of illness. Patients with co-morbidities and those who died during ICU or hospital stay had worse QOLSS scores.

Project description:BackgroundA low plasma glutamine level at the time of acute admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) is an independent predictor of an unfavourable outcome in critically ill patients. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether there are differences in plasma glutamine levels upon non-elective or elective ICU admission. The secondary objective was to compare glutamine levels over time, and to determine correlations between glutamine levels and the severity of illness and presence of infection in ICU patients.MethodsWe performed a single-centre observational study in a closed-format, 22-bed, mixed ICU. Plasma glutamine levels were measured at admission and every morning at 6.00 a.m. during the ICU stay. We aimed to include at least 80 patients per group. The study was approved by the local Medical Ethics Committee.ResultsIn 88 patients after elective surgery, the median plasma glutamine level at admission was significantly higher compared with that in 90 non-elective patients (0.43 mmol/l [0.33-0.55 mmol/l] versus 0.25 mmol/l [0.09-0.37 mmol/l], P = 0.001). During the ICU stay, plasma glutamine levels remained significantly higher in elective patients than in non-elective patients. There was a significant correlation between the APACHE IV score and glutamine levels (R = 0.52, P < 0.001). Moreover, backward linear regression analysis showed that this correlation was independently associated with the APACHE IV score and the presence of infection, but not with the type of admission.ConclusionsPlasma glutamine levels are significantly lower after non-elective admission compared with elective admission to the ICU. A considerable amount of elective and non-elective patients have decreased plasma glutamine levels, but this is not independently associated with the type of admission. In contrast to previous studies, we found that plasma glutamine levels were determined by the severity of illness and the presence of an infection.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02310035.