BACKGROUND: There are currently no comprehensive studies in critical care settings that have set out to examine the association of palliative care screening criteria with multiple, adverse patient outcomes. METHODS: A 7-item palliative care screen was developed from consensus reports. Medical intensive care unit (MICU) nurses at four hospitals screened patients upon admission during a 16-week period. Outcomes included percentage of patients screened and their percentage with consultations ordered. Patient screen scores were compared with mortality, hospice discharge and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: During the period, 1071 patients were admitted to MICUs, of which, 59.3% were screened; 35.3% of patients screened positive. Patients with positive screens (n=225) were more likely to have a consult ordered (33.6% vs 3.4%; p<0.001), and likelihood of consult increased with higher screen scores. Patients with positive screens had significantly longer hospital and MICU LOS (p<0.001), and had increased risk of inpatient mortality (p<0.001) and hospice discharge (p<0.001). Criteria of 'admission from a skilled nursing facility' and 'readmission to the ICU' were significant predictors of LOS; 'cancer,' 'post cardiac arrest,' and 'team perceived need' were predictors of the composite variable of mortality/hospice discharge. 'End-stage dementia' and 'intracranial bleed' were not predictive of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions on the appropriateness for palliative care consultation in the MICU can be aided using a trigger screen. We recommend the use of this screen be considered in the MICU with the suggested revisions. Additional studies are needed to determine if the use of the trigger screen is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: There are currently no comprehensive studies in critical care settings that have set out to examine the association of palliative care screening criteria with multiple, adverse patient outcomes. METHODS: A 7-item palliative care screen was developed from consensus reports. Medical intensive care unit (MICU) nurses at four hospitals screened patients upon admission during a 16-week period. Outcomes included percentage of patients screened and their percentage with consultations ordered. Patient screen scores were compared with mortality, hospice discharge and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: During the period, 1071 patients were admitted to MICUs, of which, 59.3% were screened; 35.3% of patients screened positive. Patients with positive screens (n=225) were more likely to have a consult ordered (33.6% vs 3.4%; p<0.001), and likelihood of consult increased with higher screen scores. Patients with positive screens had significantly longer hospital and MICU LOS (p<0.001), and had increased risk of inpatient mortality (p<0.001) and hospice discharge (p<0.001). Criteria of 'admission from a skilled nursing facility' and 'readmission to the ICU' were significant predictors of LOS; 'cancer,' 'post cardiac arrest,' and 'team perceived need' were predictors of the composite variable of mortality/hospice discharge. 'End-stage dementia' and 'intracranial bleed' were not predictive of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions on the appropriateness for palliative care consultation in the MICU can be aided using a trigger screen. We recommend the use of this screen be considered in the MICU with the suggested revisions. Additional studies are needed to determine if the use of the trigger screen is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
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: Jessica Ma; Stephen Chi; Benjamin Buettner; Katherine Pollard; Monica Muir; Charu Kolekar; Noor Al-Hammadi; Ling Chen; Marin Kollef; Maria Dans Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Claire J Creutzfeldt; Ruth A Engelberg; Larry Healey; Chong Sherry Cheever; Kyra J Becker; Robert G Holloway; J Randall Curtis Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Sarah K Andersen; Grace Vincent; Rachel A Butler; Elke H P Brown; Dave Maloney; Sana Khalid; Rae Oanesa; James Yun; Carrie Pidro; Valerie N Davis; Judith Resick; Aaron Richardson; Kimberly Rak; Jackie Barnes; Karl B Bezak; Andrew Thurston; Eva Reitschuler-Cross; Linda A King; Ian Barbash; Ali Al-Khafaji; Emily Brant; Jonathan Bishop; Jennifer McComb; Chung-Chou H Chang; Jennifer Seaman; Jennifer S Temel; Derek C Angus; Robert Arnold; Yael Schenker; Douglas B White Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Katherine R Courtright; Vanessa Madden; Nicole B Gabler; Elizabeth Cooney; Dylan S Small; Andrea Troxel; David Casarett; Mary Ersek; J Brian Cassel; Lauren Hersch Nicholas; Gabriel Escobar; Sarah H Hill; Dan O'Brien; Mark Vogel; Scott D Halpern Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-09
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
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Deepshikha Charan Ashana; Krista L Haines; David Casarett; Maren K Olsen; Alice Parish; Yasmin Ali O'Keefe; Mashael Al-Hegelan; Robert W Harrison; Colleen Naglee; Jason N Katz; Allie Frear; Elias H Pratt; Jessie Gu; Isaretta L Riley; Shirley Otis-Green; Kimberly S Johnson; Sharron L Docherty Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-01-04