Dataset Information

Association of code status discussion with invasive procedures among advanced-stage cancer and noncancer patients.

ABSTRACT: Code status discussion is associated with a decrease in invasive procedures among terminally ill cancer patients. We investigated the association between code status discussion on admission and incidence of invasive procedures, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and opioid use among inpatients with advanced stages of cancer and noncancer diseases.We performed a retrospective cohort study in a single center, Ito Municipal Hospital, Japan. Participants were patients who were admitted to the Department of Internal Medicine between October 1, 2013 and August 30, 2015, with advanced-stage cancer and noncancer. We collected demographic data and inquired the presence or absence of code status discussion within 24 hours of admission and whether invasive procedures, including central venous catheter placement, intubation with mechanical ventilation, and CPR for cardiac arrest, and opioid treatment were performed. We investigated the factors associated with CPR events by using multivariate logistic regression analysis.Among the total 232 patients, code status was discussed with 115 patients on admission, of which 114 (99.1%) patients had do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. The code status was not discussed with the remaining 117 patients on admission, of which 69 (59%) patients had subsequent code status discussion with resultant DNR orders. Code status discussion on admission decreased the incidence of central venous catheter placement, intubation with mechanical ventilation, and CPR in both cancer and noncancer patients. It tended to increase the rate of opioid use. Code status discussion on admission was the only factor associated with the decreased use of CPR (P<0.001, odds ratio =0.03, 95% CI =0.004-0.21), which was found by using multivariate logistic regression analysis.Code status discussion on admission is associated with a decrease in invasive procedures and CPR in cancer and noncancer patients. Physicians should be educated about code status discussion to improve end-of-life care.

SUBMITTER: Sasaki A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5529109 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSome patients with end-stage disease who may neither want nor benefit from aggressive resuscitation receive such treatment if they cannot communicate in an emergency. Timely access to patients' current resuscitation wishes, or "code status," should be a key metric of electronic health records (EHR). We sought to determine what percentage of a cohort of patients with end-stage disease who present to the emergency department (ED) have accessible, code status documents, and for those who do, how quickly can this documentation be retrieved.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study of ED patients with end-stage disease (eg, palliative care, metastatic malignancy, home oxygen, dialysis) conducted during purposefully sampled random accrual times we performed a standardized, timed review of available health records, including accompanying transfer documents. We also interviewed consenting patients and substitute decision makers to compare available code status documents to their current wishes.ResultsCode status documentation was unavailable within 15 minutes of ED arrival in most cases (54/85, or 63%). Retrieval time was under five minutes in the rest, especially when "one click deep" in the EHR. When interviewed, 20/32 (63%) expressed "do not resuscitate" wishes, 10 of whom had no supporting documentation. Patients from assisted-living (odds ratio [OR] 6.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-26) and long-term care facilities (OR 13; 95% CI, 2.5-65) were more likely to have a documented code status available compared to those living in the community.ConclusionThe majority of patients with end-stage disease, including half of those who would not wish resuscitation from cardiorespiratory arrest, did not have code status documents readily available upon arrival to our tertiary care ED. Patients living in the community with advanced disease may be at higher risk for unwanted resuscitative efforts should they present to hospital in extremis. While easily retrievable code status documentation within the EHR shows promise, its accuracy and validity remain important considerations.

Project description:In the context of serious or life-limiting illness, pediatric patients and their families are faced with difficult decisions surrounding appropriate resuscitation efforts in the event of a cardiopulmonary arrest. Code status orders are one way to inform end-of-life medical decision making. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the extent to which pediatric providers have knowledge of code status options and explore the association of provider role with (1) knowledge of code status options, (2) perception of timing of code status discussions, (3) perception of family receptivity to code status discussions, and (4) comfort carrying out code status discussions.Nurses, trainees (residents and fellows), and attending physicians from pediatric units where code status discussions typically occur completed a short survey questionnaire regarding their knowledge of code status options and perceptions surrounding code status discussions.Single center, quaternary care children's hospital.203 nurses, 31 trainees, and 29 attending physicians in 4 high-acuity pediatric units responded to the survey (N = 263, 90% response rate). Based on an objective knowledge measure, providers demonstrate poor understanding of available code status options, with only 22% of providers able to enumerate more than two of four available code status options. In contrast, provider groups self-report high levels of familiarity with available code status options, with attending physicians reporting significantly higher levels than nurses and trainees (p = 0.0125). Nurses and attending physicians show significantly different perception of code status discussion timing, with majority of nurses (63.4%) perceiving discussions as occurring "too late" or "much too late" and majority of attending physicians (55.6%) perceiving the timing as "about right" (p<0.0001). Attending physicians report significantly higher comfort having code status discussions with families than do nurses or trainees (p?0.0001). Attending physicians and trainees perceive families as more receptive to code status discussions than nurses (p<0.0001 and p = 0.0018, respectively).Providers have poor understanding of code status options and differ significantly in their comfort having code status discussions and their perceptions of these discussions. These findings may reflect inherent differences among providers, but may also reflect discordant visions of appropriate care and function as a potential source of moral distress. Lack of knowledge of code status options and differences in provider perceptions are likely barriers to quality communication surrounding end-of-life options.

Project description:BackgroundHospital admission is a time when patients are sickest and also often encountering an entirely new set of caregivers. As a result, understanding and documenting a patient's care preferences at hospital admission is critically important.ObjectiveTo understand factors associated with documentation of care planning discussions in patients admitted to general medical services at 6 academic medical centers.DesignObservational cohort study using data collected during the Multicenter Hospitalist Study, conducted between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2004.SettingProspective trial enrolling patients admitted to general medicine services at 6 university-based teaching hospitals.PatientsPatients were eligible for this study if they were 18 years of age or older, admitted to a hospitalist or nonhospitalist physician, and able to give informed consent.MeasurementsPresence of chart documentation that the admitting team had discussed care plans with the patient within the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Notations such as "full code" were not counted as a discussion, whereas notations such as "discussed care wishes and plan with patient" were counted.ResultsA total of 17,097 patients over the age of 18 gave informed consent and completed an interview and chart abstraction; of these, 1776 (10.3%) had a code status discussion (CD) documented in the first 24 hours of their admission. Patients with a CD were older (69 years vs. 56 years, P < 0.0001), more often white (52.8% vs. 43.3%, P < 0.0001), and more likely to have cancer (19.8% vs. 11.4%, P < 0.0001), or depression (35.1% vs. 30.9%, P < 0.0001). There was marked variability in CD documentation across sites of enrollment (2.8%-24.9%, P < 0.0001). Despite strong associations seen in unadjusted comparisons, in multivariable models many socioeconomic factors, functional status, comorbid illness, and documentation of a surrogate decision maker were only moderately associated with a CD (adjusted odds ratios all less than 2.0). However, patients' site of enrollment (odds ratios 1.74-5.14) and informal notations describing prehospital care wishes (eg, orders for "do not resuscitate"/"do not intubate;" odds ratios 3.22-11.32 compared with no preexisting documentation) were powerfully associated with CD documentation. Site remained a powerful influence even in patients with no documented prehospital wishes.LimitationsOur results are derived from a relatively small number of academic sites, and we cannot connect documentation differences to differences in patient outcomes.ConclusionsDocumentation of a CD at admission was more strongly associated with informal documentation of prehospital care wishes and where the patient was hospitalized than legal care planning documents (such as durable power of attorney), or comorbid illnesses. Efforts to improve communication between hospitalists and their patients might target local documentation practices and culture.

Project description:IntroductionSurgical innovation has generally occurred in an unstandardised manner. This has led to unnecessary exposure of patients to harm, research waste and inadequate evidence. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) Collaboration provided a set of recommendations for evaluating surgical innovations based on their stage of innovation. Despite further refinements and guidance, adoption of the IDEAL recommendations has been slow; an important reason may be that determining the stage of innovation is often difficult. To facilitate evaluation of surgical innovations, there is a need for a detailed insight into what stage of innovation means, and how it can be determined. The aim of this study is to understand the concept of stage of innovation as reported in the literature.Methods and analysisA systematic review is being conducted. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from their inception until July 2021 using an iteratively developed strategy based on the concepts of stage of innovation, invasive procedures or devices and guidance. Articles were included if they described an approach to evaluating surgical innovations in stages, described a method for determining stage of innovation, described indicators of stage of innovation, defined stages or described potential sources of stage-related information. Conference abstracts and non-English language articles were excluded. Other articles were detected from citations within included articles and suggestions from experts in surgical innovation. Data will be extracted regarding approaches to evaluating surgical innovations, methods for determining stage of innovation, indicators of stage of innovation, definitions of stages and potential sources of stage-related information. A thematic analysis will be conducted, and findings summarised in a narrative report.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required. This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42021270812.

Project description:AbstractRapid response systems (RRS) have been introduced worldwide to reduce unpredicted in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and in-hospital mortality. The role of advance care planning (ACP) in the management of critical patients has not yet been fully determined in Japan.We retrospectively assessed the characteristics of all inpatients with unpredicted IHCA in our hospital between 2016 and 2018. Yearly changes in the number of RRS activations and the incidence of unpredicted IHCA with or without code status discussion were evaluated from 2014 to 2018. Hospital standardized mortality ratios were assessed from the data reported in the annual reports by the National Hospital Organization.A total of 81 patients (age: 70.9 ± 13.3 years) suffered an unpredicted IHCA and had multiple background diseases, including heart disease (75.3%), chronic kidney disease (25.9%), and postoperative status (cardiovascular surgery, 18.5%). Most of the patients manifested non-shockable rhythms (69.1%); survival to hospital discharge rate was markedly lower than that with shockable rhythms (26.8% vs 72.0%, P < .001). The hospital standardized mortality ratios was maintained nearly constant at approximately 50.0% for 3 consecutive years. The number of cases of RRS activation markedly increased from 75 in 2014 to 274 patients in 2018; conversely, the number of unpredicted IHCA cases was reduced from 40 in 2014 to 18 in 2018 (P < .001). Considering the data obtained in 2014 and 2015 as references, the RRS led to a reduction in the relative risk of unpredicted IHCA from 2016 to 2018 (ie, 0.618, 95% confidence interval 0.453-0.843). The reduction in unpredicted IHCA was attributed partly to the increased number of patients who had discussed the code status, and a significant correlation was observed between these parameters (R2 = 0.992, P < .001). The reduction in the number of patients with end-stage disease, including congestive heart failure and chronic renal failure, paralleled the incidence of unpredicted IHCA.Both RRS and ACP reduced the incidence of unpredicted IHCA; RRS prevents progression to unpredicted IHCA, whereas ACP decreases the number of patients with no code status discussion and thus potentially reducing the patient subgroup progressing to an unpredicted IHCA.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS:We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS:Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS:Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Dataset Information

Association of code status discussion with invasive procedures among advanced-stage cancer and noncancer patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets