Nicholas G Wysham1, May Hua, Catherine L Hough, Stephanie Gundel, Sharron L Docherty, Derek M Jones, Owen Reagan, Haley Goucher, Jessica Mcfarlin, Christopher E Cox. 1. 1Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC.2Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC.3Department of Anesthesia, Columbia University, New York, NY.4Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.5School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, NC.6Division of Neurointensive Care, Department of Neurology, Duke University, Durham, NC.7Palliative Care Medicine Program, Duke University, Durham, NC.8Program to Support People and Enhance Recovery, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Addressing the quality gap in ICU-based palliative care is limited by uncertainty about acceptable models of collaborative specialist and generalist care. Therefore, we characterized the attitudes of physicians and nurses about palliative care delivery in an ICU environment. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study. SETTING: Medical and surgical ICUs at three large academic hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred three nurses, intensivists, and advanced practice providers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinicians completed written surveys that assessed attitudes about specialist palliative care presence and integration into the ICU setting, as well as acceptability of 23 published palliative care prompts (triggers) for specialist consultation. Most (n = 225; 75%) reported that palliative care consultation was underutilized. Prompting consideration of eligibility for specialist consultation by electronic health record searches for triggers was most preferred (n = 123; 41%); only 17 of them (6%) felt current processes were adequate. The most acceptable specialist triggers were metastatic malignancy, unrealistic goals of care, end of life decision making, and persistent organ failure. Advanced age, length of stay, and duration of life support were the least acceptable. Screening led by either specialists or ICU teams was equally preferred. Central themes derived from qualitative analysis of 65 written responses to open-ended items included concerns about the roles of physicians and nurses, implementation, and impact on ICU team-family relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of palliative care specialists in the ICU is broadly acceptable and desired. However, the most commonly used current triggers for prompting specialist consultation were among the least well accepted, while more favorable triggers are difficult to abstract from electronic health record systems. There is also disagreement about the role of ICU nurses in palliative care delivery. These findings provide important guidance to the development of collaborative care models for the ICU setting.
OBJECTIVE: Addressing the quality gap in ICU-based palliative care is limited by uncertainty about acceptable models of collaborative specialist and generalist care. Therefore, we characterized the attitudes of physicians and nurses about palliative care delivery in an ICU environment. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study. SETTING: Medical and surgical ICUs at three large academic hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred three nurses, intensivists, and advanced practice providers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinicians completed written surveys that assessed attitudes about specialist palliative care presence and integration into the ICU setting, as well as acceptability of 23 published palliative care prompts (triggers) for specialist consultation. Most (n = 225; 75%) reported that palliative care consultation was underutilized. Prompting consideration of eligibility for specialist consultation by electronic health record searches for triggers was most preferred (n = 123; 41%); only 17 of them (6%) felt current processes were adequate. The most acceptable specialist triggers were metastatic malignancy, unrealistic goals of care, end of life decision making, and persistent organ failure. Advanced age, length of stay, and duration of life support were the least acceptable. Screening led by either specialists or ICU teams was equally preferred. Central themes derived from qualitative analysis of 65 written responses to open-ended items included concerns about the roles of physicians and nurses, implementation, and impact on ICU team-family relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of palliative care specialists in the ICU is broadly acceptable and desired. However, the most commonly used current triggers for prompting specialist consultation were among the least well accepted, while more favorable triggers are difficult to abstract from electronic health record systems. There is also disagreement about the role of ICU nurses in palliative care delivery. These findings provide important guidance to the development of collaborative care models for the ICU setting.
Authors: John J You; Peter Dodek; Francois Lamontagne; James Downar; Tasnim Sinuff; Xuran Jiang; Andrew G Day; Daren K Heyland Journal: CMAJ Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 8.262
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: Judith E Nelson; Therese B Cortez; J Randall Curtis; Dana R Lustbader; Anne C Mosenthal; Colleen Mulkerin; Daniel E Ray; Rick Bassett; Renee D Boss; Karen J Brasel; Margaret L Campbell; David E Weissman; Kathleen A Puntillo Journal: J Hosp Palliat Nurs Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 1.918
Authors: Mark Unroe; Jeremy M Kahn; Shannon S Carson; Joseph A Govert; Tereza Martinu; Shailaja J Sathy; Alison S Clay; Jessica Chia; Alice Gray; James A Tulsky; Christopher E Cox Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Patsy D Treece; Lois Downey; Danae Dotolo; Sarah E Shannon; Anthony L Back; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Tereza Martinu; Shailaja J Sathy; Alison S Clay; Jessica Chia; Alice L Gray; Maren K Olsen; Joseph A Govert; Shannon S Carson; James A Tulsky Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: John J You; James Downar; Robert A Fowler; François Lamontagne; Irene W Y Ma; Dev Jayaraman; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Patricia H Strachan; Roy Ilan; Aman P Nijjar; John Neary; John Shik; Kevin Brazil; Amen Patel; Kim Wiebe; Martin Albert; Anita Palepu; Elysée Nouvet; Amanda Roze des Ordons; Nishan Sharma; Amane Abdul-Razzak; Xuran Jiang; Andrew Day; Daren K Heyland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Kathrin Adler; Daniel Schlieper; Detlef Kindgen-Milles; Stefan Meier; Manuela Schallenburger; Timur Sellmann; Heidrun Schwager; Jacqueline Schwartz; Martin Neukirchen Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 17.440
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: Christopher E Cox; Isaretta L Riley; Deepshikha C Ashana; Krista Haines; Maren K Olsen; Jessie Gu; Elias H Pratt; Mashael Al-Hegelan; Robert W Harrison; Colleen Naglee; Allie Frear; Hongqiu Yang; Kimberly S Johnson; Sharron L Docherty Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Maren K Olsen; David Casarett; Krista Haines; Mashael Al-Hegelan; Raquel R Bartz; Jason N Katz; Colleen Naglee; Deepshikha Ashana; Daniel Gilstrap; Jessie Gu; Alice Parish; Allie Frear; Deepthi Krishnamaneni; Andrew Corcoran; Sharron L Docherty Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: May Hua; Laura D Fonseca; R Sean Morrison; Hannah Wunsch; Robert Fullilove; Douglas B White Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.612