OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence and predictors of clinician discomfort with life support plans for ICU patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort in 13 medical-surgical ICUs in four countries. PATIENTS: 657 mechanically ventilated adults expected to stay in ICU at least 72 h. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Daily we documented the life support plan for mechanical ventilation, inotropes and dialysis, and clinician comfort with these plans. If uncomfortable, clinicians stated whether the plan was too technologically intense (the provision of too many life support modalities or the provision of any modality for too long) or not intense enough, and why. At least one clinician was uncomfortable at least once for 283 (43.1%) patients, primarily because plans were too technologically intense rather than not intense enough (93.9% vs. 6.1%). Predictors of discomfort because plans were too intense were: patient age, medical admission, APACHE II score, poor prior functional status, organ dysfunction, dialysis in ICU, plan to withhold dialysis, plan to withhold mechanical ventilation, first week in the ICU, clinician, and city. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician discomfort with life support perceived as too technologically intense is common, experienced mostly by nurses, variable across centers, and is more likely for older, severely ill medical patients, those with acute renal failure, and patients lacking plans to forgo reintubation and ventilation. Acknowledging the sources of discomfort could improve communication and decision making.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence and predictors of clinician discomfort with life support plans for ICU patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort in 13 medical-surgical ICUs in four countries. PATIENTS: 657 mechanically ventilated adults expected to stay in ICU at least 72 h. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Daily we documented the life support plan for mechanical ventilation, inotropes and dialysis, and clinician comfort with these plans. If uncomfortable, clinicians stated whether the plan was too technologically intense (the provision of too many life support modalities or the provision of any modality for too long) or not intense enough, and why. At least one clinician was uncomfortable at least once for 283 (43.1%) patients, primarily because plans were too technologically intense rather than not intense enough (93.9% vs. 6.1%). Predictors of discomfort because plans were too intense were: patient age, medical admission, APACHE II score, poor prior functional status, organ dysfunction, dialysis in ICU, plan to withhold dialysis, plan to withhold mechanical ventilation, first week in the ICU, clinician, and city. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician discomfort with life support perceived as too technologically intense is common, experienced mostly by nurses, variable across centers, and is more likely for older, severely ill medical patients, those with acute renal failure, and patients lacking plans to forgo reintubation and ventilation. Acknowledging the sources of discomfort could improve communication and decision making.
Entities:
Keywords:
Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach
Authors: Edouard Ferrand; François Lemaire; Bernard Regnier; Khaldoun Kuteifan; Michel Badet; Pierre Asfar; Samir Jaber; Jean-Luc Chagnon; Anne Renault; René Robert; Frédéric Pochard; Christian Herve; Christian Brun-Buisson; Philippe Duvaldestin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2003-01-24 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Lesley Stevens; Deborah Cook; Gordon Guyatt; Lauren Griffith; Steven Walter; Joseph McMullin Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Deborah Cook; Graeme Rocker; John Marshall; Peter Sjokvist; Peter Dodek; Lauren Griffith; Andreas Freitag; Joseph Varon; Christine Bradley; Mitchell Levy; Simon Finfer; Cindy Hamielec; Joseph McMullin; Bruce Weaver; Stephen Walter; Gordon Guyatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D J Cook; G H Guyatt; R Jaeschke; J Reeve; A Spanier; D King; D W Molloy; A Willan; D L Streiner Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-03-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter Andrews; Elie Azoulay; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Jerome Pugin; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker; Benoit Vallet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-02-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Charles L Sprung; Thomas Woodcock; Peter Sjokvist; Bara Ricou; Hans-Henrik Bulow; Anne Lippert; Paulo Maia; Simon Cohen; Mario Baras; Seppo Hovilehto; Didier Ledoux; Dermot Phelan; Elisabet Wennberg; Wolfgang Schobersberger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-11-09 Impact factor: 17.440