OBJECTIVES: Although studies have shown regional and interhospital variability in the intensity of end-of-life care, few data are available assessing variability in specific aspects of palliative care in the ICU across hospitals or interhospital variability in family and nurse ratings of this care. Recently, relatively high family satisfaction with ICU end-of-life care has prompted speculation that ICU palliative care has improved over time, but temporal trends have not been documented. DESIGN/ SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients dying in the ICU in 13 Seattle-Tacoma-area hospitals between 2003 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS: We examined variability over time and among hospitals in satisfaction and quality of dying assessed by family, quality of dying assessed by nurses, and chart-based indicators of palliative care. We used regression analyses adjusting for patient, family, and nurse characteristics. MAIN RESULTS: Medical charts were abstracted for 3,065 of 3,246 eligible patients over a 55-month period. There were significant differences between hospitals for all chart-based indicators (p < 0.001), family satisfaction (p < 0.001), family-rated quality of dying (p = 0.03), and nurse-rated quality of dying (p = 0.003). There were few significant changes in these measures over time, although we found a significant increase in pain assessments in the last 24 hours of life (p < 0.001) as well as decreased documentation of family conferences (p < 0.001) and discussion of prognosis (p = 0.020) in the first 72 hours in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant interhospital variation in ratings and delivery of palliative care, consistent with prior studies showing variation in intensity of care at the end of life. We did not find evidence of temporal changes in most aspects of palliative care, family satisfaction, or nurse/family ratings of the quality of dying. With the possible exception of pain assessment, there is little evidence that the quality of palliative care has improved over the time period studied.
OBJECTIVES: Although studies have shown regional and interhospital variability in the intensity of end-of-life care, few data are available assessing variability in specific aspects of palliative care in the ICU across hospitals or interhospital variability in family and nurse ratings of this care. Recently, relatively high family satisfaction with ICU end-of-life care has prompted speculation that ICU palliative care has improved over time, but temporal trends have not been documented. DESIGN/ SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients dying in the ICU in 13 Seattle-Tacoma-area hospitals between 2003 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS: We examined variability over time and among hospitals in satisfaction and quality of dying assessed by family, quality of dying assessed by nurses, and chart-based indicators of palliative care. We used regression analyses adjusting for patient, family, and nurse characteristics. MAIN RESULTS: Medical charts were abstracted for 3,065 of 3,246 eligible patients over a 55-month period. There were significant differences between hospitals for all chart-based indicators (p < 0.001), family satisfaction (p < 0.001), family-rated quality of dying (p = 0.03), and nurse-rated quality of dying (p = 0.003). There were few significant changes in these measures over time, although we found a significant increase in pain assessments in the last 24 hours of life (p < 0.001) as well as decreased documentation of family conferences (p < 0.001) and discussion of prognosis (p = 0.020) in the first 72 hours in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant interhospital variation in ratings and delivery of palliative care, consistent with prior studies showing variation in intensity of care at the end of life. We did not find evidence of temporal changes in most aspects of palliative care, family satisfaction, or nurse/family ratings of the quality of dying. With the possible exception of pain assessment, there is little evidence that the quality of palliative care has improved over the time period studied.
Authors: N S Wenger; R S Phillips; J M Teno; R K Oye; N V Dawson; H Liu; R Califf; P Layde; R Hakim; J Lynn Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Graeme M Rocker; Daren K Heyland; Deborah J Cook; Peter M Dodek; Demetrios J Kutsogiannis; Christopher J O'Callaghan Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2004 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: Daren K Heyland; Graeme M Rocker; Peter M Dodek; Demetrios J Kutsogiannis; Elsie Konopad; Deborah J Cook; Sharon Peters; Joan E Tranmer; Christopher J O'Callaghan Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Derek C Angus; Amber E Barnato; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Lisa A Weissfeld; R Scott Watson; Tim Rickert; Gordon D Rubenfeld Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Joanna L Hart; Michael O Harhay; Nicole B Gabler; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Caroline M Quill; Scott D Halpern Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Derek M Jones; Wen Reagan; Mary D Key; Vinca Chow; Jessica McFarlin; David Casarett; Claire J Creutzfeldt; Sharron L Docherty Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2018-01
Authors: Ann C Long; Erin K Kross; Ruth A Engelberg; Lois Downey; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Anthony L Back; J Randall Curtis Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nicholas G Wysham; May Hua; Catherine L Hough; Stephanie Gundel; Sharron L Docherty; Derek M Jones; Owen Reagan; Haley Goucher; Jessica Mcfarlin; Christopher E Cox Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 7.598