OBJECTIVES: To determine whether palliative care teams can improve patient, family and staff satisfaction for patients receiving end-of-life care in the intensive care unit and reduce surrogate markers of health care costs. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, feasibility study. SETTING: 14-bed general ICU over 29 months in 2006-2008. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted with a terminal or preterminal condition, for whom the treating intensivist considered that escalating or continuing treatment was unlikely to achieve significant improvement in the patient's clinical condition. INTERVENTION: A consultation from a palliative care team, in addition to usual ICU end-of-life care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ICU and hospital length of stay, and changes in composite scores of satisfaction obtained from questionnaires administered to families, nursing staff and intensivists. RESULTS: The study was constrained by significant logistical and methodological problems, including low recruitment and questionnaire completion rates, and the lack of an available validated questionnaire. From a total of 2009 admissions over a 29-month period, 20 patients were enrolled, 10 in each group. There were significant differences in baseline characteristics. There were no statistically significant differences between those who had a consultation with the palliative care team and those who did not in median ICU length of stay (3 days v 5 days, P=0.97), median hospital length of stay (5 days v 11 days, P=0.44), or changes in overall composite satisfaction scores reported by families (-6% v -6%, P=0.91), nursing staff (+5% v +15%, P=0.30), and intensivists (-2% v +2%, P=0.42). CONCLUSION: This feasibility study was difficult to conduct and did not generate any robust conclusions about the utility of involving palliative care teams in end-of-life care in the ICU. Larger studies are technically possible but unlikely to be feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000110583.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether palliative care teams can improve patient, family and staff satisfaction for patients receiving end-of-life care in the intensive care unit and reduce surrogate markers of health care costs. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, feasibility study. SETTING: 14-bed general ICU over 29 months in 2006-2008. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted with a terminal or preterminal condition, for whom the treating intensivist considered that escalating or continuing treatment was unlikely to achieve significant improvement in the patient's clinical condition. INTERVENTION: A consultation from a palliative care team, in addition to usual ICU end-of-life care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ICU and hospital length of stay, and changes in composite scores of satisfaction obtained from questionnaires administered to families, nursing staff and intensivists. RESULTS: The study was constrained by significant logistical and methodological problems, including low recruitment and questionnaire completion rates, and the lack of an available validated questionnaire. From a total of 2009 admissions over a 29-month period, 20 patients were enrolled, 10 in each group. There were significant differences in baseline characteristics. There were no statistically significant differences between those who had a consultation with the palliative care team and those who did not in median ICU length of stay (3 days v 5 days, P=0.97), median hospital length of stay (5 days v 11 days, P=0.44), or changes in overall composite satisfaction scores reported by families (-6% v -6%, P=0.91), nursing staff (+5% v +15%, P=0.30), and intensivists (-2% v +2%, P=0.42). CONCLUSION: This feasibility study was difficult to conduct and did not generate any robust conclusions about the utility of involving palliative care teams in end-of-life care in the ICU. Larger studies are technically possible but unlikely to be feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000110583.
Authors: Dio Kavalieratos; Jennifer Corbelli; Di Zhang; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Natalie C Ernecoff; Janel Hanmer; Zachariah P Hoydich; Dara Z Ikejiani; Michele Klein-Fedyshin; Camilla Zimmermann; Sally C Morton; Robert M Arnold; Lucas Heller; Yael Schenker Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Natalie C Ernecoff; Devon Check; Megan Bannon; Laura C Hanson; James Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Jennifer Corbelli; Michele Klein-Fedyshin; Yael Schenker; Camilla Zimmermann; Robert M Arnold; Dio Kavalieratos Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Nita Khandelwal; Erin K Kross; Ruth A Engelberg; Norma B Coe; Ann C Long; J Randall Curtis Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Laura Evans; Andrew Rhodes; Waleed Alhazzani; Massimo Antonelli; Craig M Coopersmith; Craig French; Flávia R Machado; Lauralyn Mcintyre; Marlies Ostermann; Hallie C Prescott; Christa Schorr; Steven Simpson; W Joost Wiersinga; Fayez Alshamsi; Derek C Angus; Yaseen Arabi; Luciano Azevedo; Richard Beale; Gregory Beilman; Emilie Belley-Cote; Lisa Burry; Maurizio Cecconi; John Centofanti; Angel Coz Yataco; Jan De Waele; R Phillip Dellinger; Kent Doi; Bin Du; Elisa Estenssoro; Ricard Ferrer; Charles Gomersall; Carol Hodgson; Morten Hylander Møller; Theodore Iwashyna; Shevin Jacob; Ruth Kleinpell; Michael Klompas; Younsuck Koh; Anand Kumar; Arthur Kwizera; Suzana Lobo; Henry Masur; Steven McGloughlin; Sangeeta Mehta; Yatin Mehta; Mervyn Mer; Mark Nunnally; Simon Oczkowski; Tiffany Osborn; Elizabeth Papathanassoglou; Anders Perner; Michael Puskarich; Jason Roberts; William Schweickert; Maureen Seckel; Jonathan Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Tobias Welte; Janice Zimmerman; Mitchell Levy Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-10-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Tim Luckett; Jane Phillips; Meera Agar; Claudia Virdun; Anna Green; Patricia M Davidson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Frederika E Witkamp; Lia van Zuylen; Paul J van der Maas; Helma van Dijk; Carin C D van der Rijt; Agnes van der Heide Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 2.655