Matthew H Anstey1,2, Edward Litton3, Michelle L Trevenen4, Kelly Thompson5, Steve Webb6,7, Ian Seppelt8,9, Imogen A Mitchell10,11. 1. Intensive Care Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Level 4 G Block, Hospital Ave, Nedlands, 6009, WA, Australia. matthew.anstey@health.wa.gov.au. 2. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia. matthew.anstey@health.wa.gov.au. 3. Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Australia. 4. Centre for Applied Statistics, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 5. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. 6. St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, Australia. 7. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, Australia. 9. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 10. The Canberra Hospital, Garran, Australia. 11. Australian National University Medical School, Canberra, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence of perceptions of patients receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity, as perceived by intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare providers, and to assess the congruence of perceptions between providers. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, observational study conducted in 21 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand, patient prevalence data was linked to an ICU staff survey to describe the extent to which patient treatment intensity was matched to the perceived prognosis and patient wishes. RESULTS: Of the 307 study patients, 62 (20.2%) were reported to be receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity by at least one ICU healthcare professional. For reported mismatch, there was consensus amongst staff members for 52/62 (84%) of patients. Patients were significantly more likely to receive mismatched treatments if they were more severely unwell (APACHE II score > 20 vs. ≤ 20), odds ratio OR 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63-3.37, p < 0.0001, if they were an emergency admission (OR 3.05, CI 1.18-7.89, p = 0.0212) or if they had an advance care directive (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.66-8.16, p = 0.0013). CONCLUSIONS: Being more severely unwell, being an emergency admission or having an advance care directive made patients more likely to be perceived as having a mismatch between the intensity of treatments provided and either the achievable goals of care, expected prognosis or patient's wishes.
PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence of perceptions of patients receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity, as perceived by intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare providers, and to assess the congruence of perceptions between providers. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, observational study conducted in 21 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand, patient prevalence data was linked to an ICU staff survey to describe the extent to which patient treatment intensity was matched to the perceived prognosis and patient wishes. RESULTS: Of the 307 study patients, 62 (20.2%) were reported to be receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity by at least one ICU healthcare professional. For reported mismatch, there was consensus amongst staff members for 52/62 (84%) of patients. Patients were significantly more likely to receive mismatched treatments if they were more severely unwell (APACHE II score > 20 vs. ≤ 20), odds ratio OR 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63-3.37, p < 0.0001, if they were an emergency admission (OR 3.05, CI 1.18-7.89, p = 0.0212) or if they had an advance care directive (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.66-8.16, p = 0.0013). CONCLUSIONS: Being more severely unwell, being an emergency admission or having an advance care directive made patients more likely to be perceived as having a mismatch between the intensity of treatments provided and either the achievable goals of care, expected prognosis or patient's wishes.
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: Daniel Schwarzkopf; Hendrik Rüddel; Daniel O Thomas-Rüddel; Jörg Felfe; Bernhard Poidinger; Claudia T Matthäus-Krämer; Christiane S Hartog; Frank Bloos Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Judy E Davidson; Rebecca A Aslakson; Ann C Long; Kathleen A Puntillo; Erin K Kross; Joanna Hart; Christopher E Cox; Hannah Wunsch; Mary A Wickline; Mark E Nunnally; Giora Netzer; Nancy Kentish-Barnes; Charles L Sprung; Christiane S Hartog; Maureen Coombs; Rik T Gerritsen; Ramona O Hopkins; Linda S Franck; Yoanna Skrobik; Alexander A Kon; Elizabeth A Scruth; Maurene A Harvey; Mithya Lewis-Newby; Douglas B White; Sandra M Swoboda; Colin R Cooke; Mitchell M Levy; Elie Azoulay; J Randall Curtis Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: James A Tulsky; Mary Catherine Beach; Phyllis N Butow; Susan E Hickman; Jennifer W Mack; R Sean Morrison; Richard L Street; Rebecca L Sudore; Douglas B White; Kathryn I Pollak Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: George Godfrey; David Pilcher; Andrew Hilton; Michael Bailey; Carol L Hodgson; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 7.598