Thanh H Neville1, Myrtle C Yamamoto2, Joshua F Wiley3, Neil S Wenger4. 1. David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, United States. Electronic address: tneville@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Department of Medicine, Quality Improvement, United States. 3. Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences and School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Australia. 4. David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, RAND Health, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Medical interventions that do not offer the patient meaningful benefit due to inconsistency with prognoses are often considered "inappropriate" by clinicians. We described the clinical details and resource utilisation of patients who were assessed as receiving inappropriate treatment. DESIGN: Chart abstraction was performed on 123 patients who were assessed by their critical care physician as having received inappropriate treatment to document clinical characteristics, diagnostic testing, life-sustaining treatments and nursing assessments of daily pain and level of consciousness. RESULTS: The mean age was 67 and on admission, 41% had cancer and 25% had advanced pulmonary disease. At least one of the following three conditions was noted in 57% of the patients: severe neurological injury, overwhelming sepsis or irreversible respiratory failure. Patients were less likely to be alert (OR 0.39, CI 0.16-0.91, p = 0.03) on days they were assessed as receiving inappropriate critical care. After they were assessed as receiving inappropriate critical care, they received 172 imaging studies, 151 procedures, 522 days of mechanical ventilation (excludes one patient who received 1020 days of mechanical ventilation), 254 days of vasopressors, 226 days of hemodialysis and 10 attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients assessed as receiving inappropriate critical care receive resource-intensive medical care, largely while non-alert.
OBJECTIVE: Medical interventions that do not offer the patient meaningful benefit due to inconsistency with prognoses are often considered "inappropriate" by clinicians. We described the clinical details and resource utilisation of patients who were assessed as receiving inappropriate treatment. DESIGN: Chart abstraction was performed on 123 patients who were assessed by their critical care physician as having received inappropriate treatment to document clinical characteristics, diagnostic testing, life-sustaining treatments and nursing assessments of daily pain and level of consciousness. RESULTS: The mean age was 67 and on admission, 41% had cancer and 25% had advanced pulmonary disease. At least one of the following three conditions was noted in 57% of the patients: severe neurological injury, overwhelming sepsis or irreversible respiratory failure. Patients were less likely to be alert (OR 0.39, CI 0.16-0.91, p = 0.03) on days they were assessed as receiving inappropriate critical care. After they were assessed as receiving inappropriate critical care, they received 172 imaging studies, 151 procedures, 522 days of mechanical ventilation (excludes one patient who received 1020 days of mechanical ventilation), 254 days of vasopressors, 226 days of hemodialysis and 10 attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS:Patients assessed as receiving inappropriate critical care receive resource-intensive medical care, largely while non-alert.
Authors: Hannah Wunsch; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; David A Harrison; Amber E Barnato; Kathryn M Rowan; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Thanh N Huynh; Eric C Kleerup; Joshua F Wiley; Terrance D Savitsky; Diana Guse; Bryan J Garber; Neil S Wenger Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ruth D Piers; Elie Azoulay; Bara Ricou; Freda Dekeyser Ganz; Johan Decruyenaere; Adeline Max; Andrej Michalsen; Paulo Azevedo Maia; Radoslaw Owczuk; Francesca Rubulotta; Pieter Depuydt; Anne-Pascale Meert; Anna K Reyners; Andrew Aquilina; Maarten Bekaert; Nele J Van den Noortgate; Wim J Schrauwen; Dominique D Benoit Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shi-Yi Wang; Jane Hall; Craig E Pollack; Kerin Adelson; Elizabeth H Bradley; Jessica B Long; Cary P Gross Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Rohit K Singal; Robert Sibbald; Brenda Morgan; Mel Quinlan; Neil Parry; Michael Radford; Claudio M Martin Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Thanh H Neville; Joshua F Wiley; Myrtle C Yamamoto; Mark Flitcraft; Barbara Anderson; J Randall Curtis; Neil S Wenger Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.228
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