OBJECTIVES: Sedation-agitation and delirium are common in critically ill patients and may be important barriers to informed consent. We describe a two-step process for informed consent and evaluate the natural history of patients' competency by repeated application of this process during their hospitalization. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Nine intensive care units (ICUs) in three teaching hospitals in Baltimore, MD. PATIENTS: One hundred fifty patients with acute lung injury. INTERVENTIONS: Two-step process involving objective evaluation with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (step 1), followed by traditional assessment for competency (step 2) in those patients passing step 1. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: RASS and CAM-ICU assessments (during ICU stay, at consent and hospital discharge); cumulative proportion of patients providing consent at extubation and at ICU and hospital discharge. Of 150 patients, 86 (57%) survived and 77 (90% of survivors) provided consent. Patients were delirious/deeply sedated in 89% of daily assessments during mechanical ventilation. By extubation, 31 (44%) patients passed step 1 and 8 (11%) passed step 2 and were consented. By ICU and hospital discharge, these numbers were 50 (58%) and 18 (21%), and 81 (94%) and 67 (78%), respectively. The median (interquartile range) time to patient consent after acute lung injury diagnosis was 15 (9-28) days. CONCLUSIONS: More than three fourths of critically ill patients are unable to provide informed consent throughout their ICU stay, even after extubation. Sedation-agitation and delirium are common barriers to consent. A two-step consent process, using validated instruments for sedation-agitation and delirium, provides a means of rapidly screening critically ill patients before a more detailed traditional assessment of competency is conducted.
OBJECTIVES: Sedation-agitation and delirium are common in critically illpatients and may be important barriers to informed consent. We describe a two-step process for informed consent and evaluate the natural history of patients' competency by repeated application of this process during their hospitalization. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Nine intensive care units (ICUs) in three teaching hospitals in Baltimore, MD. PATIENTS: One hundred fifty patients with acute lung injury. INTERVENTIONS: Two-step process involving objective evaluation with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (step 1), followed by traditional assessment for competency (step 2) in those patients passing step 1. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: RASS and CAM-ICU assessments (during ICU stay, at consent and hospital discharge); cumulative proportion of patients providing consent at extubation and at ICU and hospital discharge. Of 150 patients, 86 (57%) survived and 77 (90% of survivors) provided consent. Patients were delirious/deeply sedated in 89% of daily assessments during mechanical ventilation. By extubation, 31 (44%) patients passed step 1 and 8 (11%) passed step 2 and were consented. By ICU and hospital discharge, these numbers were 50 (58%) and 18 (21%), and 81 (94%) and 67 (78%), respectively. The median (interquartile range) time to patient consent after acute lung injury diagnosis was 15 (9-28) days. CONCLUSIONS: More than three fourths of critically illpatients are unable to provide informed consent throughout their ICU stay, even after extubation. Sedation-agitation and delirium are common barriers to consent. A two-step consent process, using validated instruments for sedation-agitation and delirium, provides a means of rapidly screening critically illpatients before a more detailed traditional assessment of competency is conducted.
Authors: Oscar J Bienvenu; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Victor D Dinglas; Carl Shanholtz; Nadia Husain; Cheryl R Dennison; Margaret S Herridge; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Alexandra Smart; B Taylor Thompson; Dale M Needham; Ramona O Hopkins; Andre Williams; Ellen L Burnham; Marc Moss Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Michelle E Kho; Alexander D Truong; Roy G Brower; Jeffrey B Palmer; Eddy Fan; Jennifer M Zanni; Nancy D Ciesla; Dorianne R Feldman; Radha Korupolu; Dale M Needham Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2012-03-15
Authors: Victor D Dinglas; Jonathan Gellar; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Vanessa A Stan; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Kali A Barrett; Niall D Ferguson; Valerie Athaide; Deborah J Cook; Jan O Friedrich; Ellen McDonald; Ruxandra Pinto; Orla M Smith; James Stevenson; Damon C Scales Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Victor D Dinglas; Jeneen M Gifford; Nadia Husain; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jeneen M Gifford; Nadia Husain; Victor D Dinglas; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jane Topolovec-Vranic; Marlene Santos; Andrew J Baker; Orla M Smith; Karen E A Burns Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 2.409