Article

Physician reimbursement for critical care services integrating palliative care for patients who are critically ill.

North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA.
Chest (Impact Factor: 7.13). 03/2012; 141(3):787-92. DOI: 10.1378/chest.11-2012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patients with advanced illness often spend time in an ICU, while nearly one-third of patients with advanced cancer who receive Medicare die in hospitals, often with failed ICU care. For most, death occurs following the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatments. The integration of palliative care is essential for high-quality critical care. Although palliative care specialists are becoming increasingly available, intensivists and other physicians are also expected to provide basic palliative care, including symptom treatment and communication about goals of care. Patients who are critically ill are often unable to make decisions about their care. In these situations, physicians must meet with family members or other surrogates to determine appropriate medical treatments. These meetings require clinical expertise to ensure that patient values are explored for medical decision making about therapeutic options, including palliative care. Meetings with families take time. Issues related to the disease process, prognosis, and treatment plan are complex, and decisions about the use or limitation of intensive care therapies have life-or-death implications. Inadequate reimbursement for physician services may be a barrier to the optimal delivery of high-quality palliative care, including effective communication. Appropriate documentation of time spent integrating palliative and critical care for patients who are critically ill can be consistent with the Current Procedural Terminology codes (99291 and 99292) for critical care services. The purpose of this article is to help intensivists and other providers understand the circumstances in which integration of palliative and critical care meets the definition of critical care services for billing purposes.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
141 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Over the last 20 years, multiple interventions to better integrate palliative care and intensive care unit (ICU) care have been evaluated. This systematic review summarizes these studies and their outcomes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science; performed a search of articles published by opinion leaders in the field; and reviewed hand-search articles as of August 13, 2012. The terms "palliative care" and "intensive care unit" were mapped to MeSH subject headings and "exploded." We included trials of adult patients that evaluated an ICU intervention and addressed Robert Wood Johnson group-identified domains of high-quality end-of-life care in the ICU. We excluded case series, editorials, and review articles. We compared two types of interventions, integrative and consultative, focusing on the outcomes of patient and family satisfaction, mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), because these were most prevalent among studies. Results: Our search strategy yielded 3328 references, of which we included 37 publications detailing 30 unique interventions. Interventions and outcome measures were heterogeneous, and many studies were underpowered and/or subject to multiple biases. Most of the interventions resulted in a decrease in hospital and ICU LOS. Few interventions significantly affected satisfaction. With one exception, the interventions decreased or had no effect on mortality. There was no evidence of harm from any intervention. Conclusions: Heterogeneity of interventions made comparison of ICU-based palliative care interventions difficult. However, existing evidence suggests proactive palliative care in the ICU, using either consultative or integrative palliative care interventions, decrease hospital and ICU LOS, do not affect satisfaction, and either decrease or do not affect mortality.
    Journal of palliative medicine 02/2014; 17(2):219-35. · 1.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: End-of-life-decisions (EOLD) have become an important part of modern intensive care medicine. With increasing therapeutic possibilities on the one hand and many ICU-patients lacking decision making capacity or an advance directive on the other the decision making process is a major challenge on the intensive care unit (ICU). Currently, data are poor on factors associated with EOLD in Germany. In 2009, a new law on advance directives binding physicians and the patient´s surrogate decision makers was enacted in Germany. So far it is unknown if this law influenced proceedings of EOLD making on the ICU. A retrospective analysis was conducted on all deceased patients (n = 224) in a 22-bed surgical ICU of a German university medical center from 08/2008 to 09/2010. Patient characteristics were compared between patients with an EOLD and those without an EOLD. Patients with an EOLD admitted before and after change of legislation were compared with respect to frequencies of EOLD performance as well as advance directive rates. In total, 166 (74.1%) of deaths occurred after an EOLD. Compared to patients without an EOLD, comorbidities, ICU severity scores, and organ replacement technology did not differ significantly. EOLDs were shared within the caregiverteam and with the patient´s surrogate decision makers. After law enacting, no differences in EOLD performance or frequency of advance directives (8.9% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.807) were observed except an increase of documentation efforts associated with EOLDs (18.7% vs. 43.6%; p<0.001). In our ICU EOLD proceedings were performed patient-individually. But EOLDs follow a standard of shared decision making within the caregiverteam and the patient´s surrogate decision makers. Enacting a law on advance directives has not affected the decision making-process in EOLDs nor has it affected population´s advance care planning habits. However, it has led to increased EOLD-associated documentation on the ICU. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01294189.
    PLoS ONE 01/2012; 7(10):e46446. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
15 Downloads
Available from
May 31, 2014