Daniela J Lamas1,2, Robert L Owens3, R Nicholas Nace4, Anthony F Massaro1, Nathan J Pertsch2, Susan T Moore4, Rachelle E Bernacki2,5,6, Susan D Block2,5,6,7. 1. 1 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts. 2. 2 Ariadne Labs at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard T.H. Chen School of Public Health , Boston, Massachusetts. 3. 3 Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of California San Diego , San Diego, California. 4. 4 Department of Medicine, Spaulding Hospital for Continuing Medical Care , Cambridge, Massachusetts. 5. 5 Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute , Boston, Massachusetts. 6. 6 Division of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts. 7. 7 Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
RATIONALE: The chronically critically ill have survived acute critical illness but require prolonged mechanical ventilation. These patients are frequently transferred from acute care to long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) for prolonged recovery, yet many suffer setbacks requiring readmission to acute care. The patient's relatively improved condition while at the LTACH might be an opportunity for communication regarding care goals; however, there have been no prior studies of the feasibility of such conversations in the LTACH. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility, acceptability, and potential usefulness of conversations about serious illness with chronic critical illness patients or their surrogate decision makers after LTACH admission. METHODS: We adapted an existing conversation guide for use in chronically critically ill (defined by tracheotomy for prolonged ventilation) LTACH patients or their surrogates to explore views about quality of life, understanding of medical conditions, expectations, and planning for setbacks. These conversations were conducted by one interviewer and summarized for the patients' clinicians. We surveyed patients, surrogates, and clinicians to assess acceptability. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 subjects were approached and 50 (71%) were enrolled, including 30 patients and 20 surrogates. The median duration of the conversation was 14 minutes 45 seconds [IQR 12:46, 19]. The presence of ongoing mechanical ventilation did not lead to longer conversations; in fact, conversations with patients were shorter than those with surrogates. The majority of subjects (81%) described the conversation as worthwhile. The majority of clinicians (73%) reported that the conversation offered a new and significant understanding of the patient's preferences if a setback were to occur. CONCLUSIONS: Conversations about serious illness care goals can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time, are acceptable to chronically critically ill patients and their surrogate decision makers in the LTACH, and are perceived as worthwhile by patients, surrogates, and clinicians.
RATIONALE: The chronically critically ill have survived acute critical illness but require prolonged mechanical ventilation. These patients are frequently transferred from acute care to long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) for prolonged recovery, yet many suffer setbacks requiring readmission to acute care. The patient's relatively improved condition while at the LTACH might be an opportunity for communication regarding care goals; however, there have been no prior studies of the feasibility of such conversations in the LTACH. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility, acceptability, and potential usefulness of conversations about serious illness with chronic critical illnesspatients or their surrogate decision makers after LTACH admission. METHODS: We adapted an existing conversation guide for use in chronically critically ill (defined by tracheotomy for prolonged ventilation) LTACH patients or their surrogates to explore views about quality of life, understanding of medical conditions, expectations, and planning for setbacks. These conversations were conducted by one interviewer and summarized for the patients' clinicians. We surveyed patients, surrogates, and clinicians to assess acceptability. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 subjects were approached and 50 (71%) were enrolled, including 30 patients and 20 surrogates. The median duration of the conversation was 14 minutes 45 seconds [IQR 12:46, 19]. The presence of ongoing mechanical ventilation did not lead to longer conversations; in fact, conversations with patients were shorter than those with surrogates. The majority of subjects (81%) described the conversation as worthwhile. The majority of clinicians (73%) reported that the conversation offered a new and significant understanding of the patient's preferences if a setback were to occur. CONCLUSIONS: Conversations about serious illness care goals can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time, are acceptable to chronically critically ill patients and their surrogate decision makers in the LTACH, and are perceived as worthwhile by patients, surrogates, and clinicians.
Entities:
Keywords:
chronic critical illness; end of life; long-term nursing home patients at the end of life
Authors: A Fuchsia Howard; Sarah Crowe; Laura Choroszewski; Joe Kovatch; Adrianne J Haynes; Joan Ford; Scott Beck; Gregory J Haljan Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2020-12-08
Authors: Lone Doris Tuesen; Anne Sophie Ågård; Hans-Henrik Bülow; Erik K Fromme; Hanne Irene Jensen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Joanna Paladino; Suzanne Mitchell; Namita Mohta; Joshua R Lakin; Nora Downey; Erik K Fromme; Sue Gullo; Evan Benjamin; Justin J Sanders Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2020-10-24