Code status orders and goals of care in the medical ICU.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gehlbach TG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3198491 | biostudies-other | 2011 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Although do-not-resuscitate orders only prohibit cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the case of cardiac arrest, the common initiation of this code status in the context of end-of-life care may lead providers to draw premature conclusions about other goals of care. The aim of this study is to identify concerns regarding care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate orders within the Department of Defense and compare differences in perceptions between members of the critical care team.DesignA cross sectional observational study was conducted.SettingThis study took place in the setting of critical care within the Department of Defense.SubjectsAll members of the Uniformed Services Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine were invited to participate.InterventionsA validated 31-question survey exploring the perceptions of care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate status was distributed.Measurements and main resultsExploratory factor analysis was used to categorically group survey questions, and average factor scores were compared between respondent groups using t tests. Responses to individual questions were also analyzed between comparison groups using Fisher exact tests. Factor analysis revealed no significant differences between respondents of different training backgrounds; however, those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to agree that active treatment would be pursued (p = 0.024) and that trust and communication would be maintained (p = 0.005). Although 38% of all respondents worry that quality of care will decrease, 93% agree that life-prolonging treatments should be offered. About a third of providers wrongly believed that a do-not-resuscitate order must be reversed prior to an operation.ConclusionsAlthough providers across training backgrounds held similar concerns about decreased care quality in the ICU, there is wide belief that the routine and noninvasive interventions are offered as indicated. Those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to believe that standards of care continued to be met after code status change.
| S-EPMC7368880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) increases quality of documentation about patients' values and priorities, but it is not known whether patient characteristics and goals of care are associated with the elements documented. The purpose of this study was to explore for associations between the quantity and type of elements documented after SICP conversations with patient characteristics and goals of care order.MethodsDocumentation of SICP conversations by internal medicine physicians with hospitalized patients was evaluated in a retrospective chart review between March 2018 to December 2019. The conversations occurred after SICP implementation in a Tertiary Hospital, Medical teaching unit which uses "Goals of Care Designation" (GCD) medical orders to communicate a patient's general intent, specific interventions, and preferred locations of care. A validated SICP codebook was used to determine the frequency of conversation elements documented for (1) Goals and Values; (2) Prognosis/illness understanding; (3) End-of-life care planning and (4) GCD/Life-sustaining treatment preferences. Univariate and multivariate generalized linear models were used to analyze associations between quantity of elements documented and patient characteristics (age, gender, frailty, language spoken and GCD).ResultsOf 175 SICP conversations documented, in the univariate analysis more goals and values were documented for patients who understand/speak English (0.89; 95% CI: 0.14 - 1.63) and more content was recorded for patients with a non-resuscitative GCD focus ("Medical": 2.42; 95% CI: 1.51 - 3.33; "Comfort": 1.06; 95% CI: 0.24 - 1.88) although not in all domains. In the multivariate analysis, controlling for age, gender, language and frailty, the association between content scores and GCD remained highly significant. Patients with a non-resuscitative GCD had higher total domain scores than those with a resuscitative GCD ("Medical": 1.27 95% CI: 0.42-2.13; "Comfort": 2.67, 95% CI:1.71-3.62).ConclusionThe type of content documented by physicians after a SICP conversation is associated with the patient's goals of care.
| S-EPMC9241276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceWhether specific communication interventions to discuss code status alter patient decisions regarding do-not-resuscitate code status and knowledge about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remains unclear.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the association of communication interventions with patient decisions and knowledge about CPR.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were systematically searched from the inception of each database to November 19, 2018.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials focusing on interventions to facilitate code status discussions. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model, and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs are reported.Data extraction and synthesisThe study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was patient preference for CPR, and the key secondary outcome was patient knowledge regarding life-sustaining treatment.ResultsFifteen randomized clinical trials (2405 patients) were included in the qualitative synthesis, 11 trials (1463 patients) were included for the quantitative synthesis of the primary end point, and 5 trials (652 patients) were included for the secondary end point. Communication interventions were significantly associated with a lower preference for CPR (390 of 727 [53.6%] vs 284 of 736 [38.6%]; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78). In a preplanned subgroup analysis, studies using resuscitation videos as decision aids compared with other interventions showed a stronger decrease in preference for life-sustaining treatment (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64 vs 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87-1.22; between-group heterogeneity P < .001). Also, a significant association was found between communication interventions and better patient knowledge (standardized mean difference, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.71).Conclusions and relevanceCommunication interventions are associated with patient decisions regarding do-not-resuscitate code status and better patient knowledge and may thus improve code status discussions.
| S-EPMC6563579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA code status documents the decision to receive or forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of cardiac arrest. For patients who undergo a rapid response team activation (RRT) for possible escalation to an intensive care unit (ICU), the presence or absence of a code status represents a critical inflection point for guiding care decisions and resource utilization. This study characterizes the prevalence of code status at the time of RRT and how code status at RRT affects rates of intensive treatments in the ICU.MethodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 895 rapid response activations occurring over six months. The study included all rapid response team activations for non-obstetric adult inpatients documented in the patient chart. All data was obtained through retrospective chart review. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed.ResultsAt the time of RRT activation, 56% of patients had a documented code status. Code status prevalence was much higher among medical rather than surgical services (74% vs. 13%). For patients escalated to the ICU, having a DNR code status at RRT was not associated with decreased odds of receiving cardioactive medications or advanced respiratory support. Before RRT activation, palliative care utilization was low (9%) but more than doubled after RRT (24% before discharge).ConclusionsBarely half of the patients had an active code status at the time of RRT activation. Similar rates of invasive ICU treatments among full code and DNR patients suggest that documented code statuses do not reflect in-depth goals of care discussions, nor does it guide medical teams caring for the patient at times of decompensation.
| S-EPMC8244475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the impact of early triggered palliative care consultation on the outcomes of high-risk ICU patients.DesignSingle-center cluster randomized crossover trial.SettingTwo medical ICUs at Barnes Jewish Hospital.PatientsPatients (n = 199) admitted to the medical ICUs from August 2017 to May 2018 with a positive palliative care screen indicating high risk for morbidity or mortality.InterventionsThe medical ICUs were randomized to intervention or usual care followed by washout and crossover, with independent assignment of patients to each ICU at admission. Intervention arm patients received a palliative care consultation from an interprofessional team led by board-certified palliative care providers within 48 hours of ICU admission.Measurements and main resultsNinety-seven patients (48.7%) were assigned to the intervention and 102 (51.3%) to usual care. Transition to do-not-resuscitate/do-not-intubate occurred earlier and significantly more often in the intervention group than the control group (50.5% vs 23.4%; p < 0.0001). The intervention group had significantly more transfers to hospice care (18.6% vs 4.9%; p < 0.01) with fewer ventilator days (median 4 vs 6 d; p < 0.05), tracheostomies performed (1% vs 7.8%; p < 0.05), and postdischarge emergency department visits and/or readmissions (17.3% vs 38.9%; p < 0.01). Although total operating cost was not significantly different, medical ICU (p < 0.01) and pharmacy (p < 0.05) operating costs were significantly lower in the intervention group. There was no significant difference in ICU length of stay (median 5 vs 5.5 d), hospital length of stay (median 10 vs 11 d), in-hospital mortality (22.6% vs 29.4%), or 30-day mortality between groups (35.1% vs 36.3%) (p > 0.05).ConclusionsEarly triggered palliative care consultation was associated with greater transition to do-not-resuscitate/do-not-intubate and to hospice care, as well as decreased ICU and post-ICU healthcare resource utilization. Our study suggests that routine palliative care consultation may positively impact the care of high risk, critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC6861688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale & objectiveElicitation and documentation of patient preferences is at the core of shared decision making and is particularly important among patients with high anticipated mortality. The extent to which older patients with incident kidney failure undertake such discussions with their providers is unknown and its characterization was the focus of this study.Study designRetrospective cohort study.Setting & participantsA random sample of veterans 67 years and older with incident kidney failure receiving care from the US Veterans Health Administration between 2005 and 2010.ExposuresDemographic and facility characteristics, as well as predicted 6-month mortality risk after dialysis initiation and documentation of resuscitation preferences.OutcomesDocumented discussions of dialysis treatment and supportive care.Analytical approachWe reviewed medical records over the 2 years before incident kidney failure and up to 1 year afterward to ascertain the frequency and timing of documented discussions about dialysis treatment, supportive care, and resuscitation. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with these documented discussions.ResultsThe cohort of 821 veterans had a mean age of 80.9±7.2 years, and 37.2% had a predicted 6-month mortality risk>20% with dialysis. Documented discussions addressing dialysis treatment and resuscitation were present in 55.6% and 77.1% of patients, respectively. Those addressing supportive care were present in 32.4%. The frequency of documentation varied by mortality risk and whether the patient ultimately started dialysis. In adjusted analyses, the frequency and pattern of documentation were more strongly associated with geographic location and receipt of outpatient nephrology care than with patient demographic or clinical characteristics.LimitationsDocumentation may not fully reflect the quality and content of discussions, and generalizability to nonveteran patients is limited.ConclusionsAmong older veterans with incident kidney failure, discussions of dialysis treatment are decoupled from other aspects of advance care planning and are suboptimally documented, even among patients at high risk for mortality.
| S-EPMC7781075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:We quantified the 28-day mortality effect of preexisting do-not-resuscitate orders in ICUs. DESIGN:Longitudinal, retrospective study of patients admitted to five ICUs at a tertiary university medical center (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, BIDMC, Boston, MA) between 2001 and 2008. INTERVENTION:None. PATIENTS:Two cohorts were defined: patients with do not resuscitate advance directives on day 1 of ICU admission and a control group comprising patients with no limitations of level of care on ICU day 1 (full code). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days after ICU admission. Of 19,007 ICU patients, 1,239 patients (6.5%) had a do-not-resuscitate order on the first day of ICU admission and survived 48 hours in the ICU. We matched those do-not-resuscitate patients with 2,402 patients with full-code status. Twenty-eight day and 1-year mortality were both significantly higher in the do-not-resuscitate group (33.9% vs 18.4% and 60.7% vs 40.2%; p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION:Do-not-resuscitate status is an independent risk factor for ICU mortality. This may reflect severity of illness not captured by other clinical factors, but the perceptions of the treating team related to do-not-resuscitate status could also be causally responsible for increased mortality in patients with do-not-resuscitate status.
| S-EPMC5679223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted variability in intensity of care. We aimed to characterize intensity of care among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.ObjectivesExamine the prevalence and predictors of admission code status, palliative care consultation, comfort-measures-only orders, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.MethodsThis cross-sectional study examined data from an international registry of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A proportional odds model evaluated predictors of more aggressive code status (i.e., Full Code) vs. less (i.e., Do Not Resuscitate, DNR). Among decedents, logistic regression was used to identify predictors of palliative care consultation, comfort measures only, and CPR at time of death.ResultsWe included 29,923 patients across 179 sites. Among those with admission code status documented, Full Code was selected by 90% (n = 15,273). Adjusting for site, Full Code was more likely for patients who were of Black or Asian race (ORs 1.82, 95% CIs 1.5-2.19; 1.78, 1.15-3.09 respectively, relative to White race), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.89, CI 1.35-2.32), and male sex (OR 1.16, CI 1.0-1.33). Of the 4951 decedents, 29% received palliative care consultation, 59% transitioned to comfort measures only, and 29% received CPR, with non-White racial and ethnic groups less likely to receive comfort measures only and more likely to receive CPR.ConclusionIn this international cohort of patients with COVID-19, Full Code was the initial code status in the majority, and more likely among patients who were Black or Asian race, Hispanic ethnicity or male. These results provide direction for future studies to improve these disparities in care.
| S-EPMC9233554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost seriously ill older adults visit the emergency department (ED) near the end of life, yet no feasible method exists to empower them to formulate their care goals in this setting.ObjectiveTo develop an intervention to empower seriously ill older adults to formulate their future care goals in the ED.DesignProspective intervention development study.SettingIn a single, urban, academic ED, we refined the prototype intervention with ED clinicians and patient advisors. We tested the intervention for its acceptability in English-speaking patients ?65 years old with serious illness or patients whose treating ED clinician answered "No" to the "surprise question" ("would not be surprised if died in the next 12 months"). We excluded patients with advance directives or whose treating ED clinician determined the patient to be inappropriate.MeasurementsOur primary outcome was perceived acceptability of our intervention. Secondary outcomes included perceived main intent and stated attitude toward future care planning.ResultsWe refined the intervention with 16 mock clinical encounters of ED clinicians and patient advisors. Then, we administered the refined intervention to 23 patients and conducted semistructured interviews afterward. Mean age of patients was 76 years, 65% were women, and 43% of patients had metastatic cancer. Most participants (n?=?17) positively assessed our intervention, identified questions for their doctors, and reflected on how they feel about their future care.ConclusionAn intervention to empower seriously ill older adults to understand the importance of future care planning in the ED was developed, and they found it acceptable.
| S-EPMC6391608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RATIONALE:The majority of ICU patients lack decision-making capacity at some point during their ICU stay. However the extent to which proxy decision-makers are engaged in decisions about their patient's care is challenging to quantify. OBJECTIVES:To assess 1)whether proxies know their patient's actual code status as recorded in the electronic medical record (EMR), and 2)whether code status orders reflect ICU patient preferences as reported by proxy decision-makers. METHODS:We enrolled proxy decision-makers for 96 days starting January 4, 2016. Proxies were asked about the patient's goals of care, preferred code status, and actual code status. Responses were compared to code status orders in the EMR at the time of interview. Characteristics of patients and proxies who correctly vs incorrectly identified actual code status were compared, as were characteristics of proxies who reported a preferred code status that did vs did not match actual code status. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Among 111 proxies, 42 (38%) were incorrect or unsure about the patient's actual code status and those who were correct vs. incorrect or unsure were similar in age, race, and years of education (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Twenty-nine percent reported a preferred code status that did not match the patient's code status in the EMR. Matching preferred and actual code status was not associated with a patient's age, gender, income, admission diagnosis, or subsequent in-hospital mortality or with proxy age, gender, race, education level, or relation to the patient (P>0.20 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS:More than 1 in 3 proxies is incorrect or unsure about their patient's actual code status and more than 1 in 4 proxies reported that a preferred code status that did not match orders in the EMR. Proxy age, race, gender and education level were not associated with correctly identifying code status or code status concordance.
| S-EPMC6353188 | biostudies-literature