Physician Staffing Models Impact the Timing of Decisions to Limit Life Support in the ICU

Chest (Impact Factor: 7.48). 09/2012; 143(3). DOI: 10.1378/chest.12-1173
Source: PubMed


A growing trend is the implementation of 24-h attending physician coverage in the ICU. Our aim was to measure the impact of 24-h, in-house, attending intensivist coverage on the quality of end-of-life care and the timing of end-of-life decision-making.

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all ICU deaths 6 months before and 6 months after the implementation of mandatory 24-h attending intensivist coverage in a medical ICU. Data relevant to end-of-life care per established consensus recommendations were abstracted from the medical record.

The following changes were observed after implementation of 24-h intensivist coverage: Time from ICU admission to decision to withdraw mechanical ventilation and time to decision to change to do-not-resuscitate code status both were shortened by 2 days (both P = .03). Quality measures, such as increased family presence around time of death ( P = .01) also improved. Other findings, which did not reach statistical significance, included the following: Time to family conference was shortened by 2 days ( P = .09), time to decision to limit any life support was shortened by 1 day ( P = .08), time to death was shortened by 2 days ( P = .08), and intubations against patient wishes decreased (from three to none; P = .12).

The implementation of mandatory 24-h, in-house, attending intensivist coverage was associated with earlier decision-making across a number of domains related to end-of-life care. Positive trends were noted in quality of end-of-life care as reflected in the presence of family at the time of death.

5 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Our aim was to explore reasons for physician variability in decisions to limit life support in the intensive care unit (ICU) utilizing qualitative methodology. Methods: Single center study consisting of semi-structured interviews with experienced physicians and nurses. Seventeen intensivists from medical (n = 7), surgical (n = 5), and anesthesia (n = 5) critical care backgrounds, and ten nurses from medical (n = 5) and surgical (n = 5) ICU backgrounds were interviewed. Principles of grounded theory were used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: Eleven factors within four categories were identified that influenced physician variability in decisions to limit life support: (1) physician work environment-workload and competing priorities, shift changes and handoffs, and incorporation of nursing input; (2) physician experiences-of unexpected patient survival, and of limiting life support in physician's family; (3) physician attitudes-investment in a good surgical outcome, specialty perspective, values and beliefs; and (4) physician relationship with patient and family-hearing the patient's wishes firsthand, engagement in family communication, and family negotiation. Conclusions: We identified several factors which physicians and nurses perceived were important sources of physician variability in decisions to limit life support. Ways to raise awareness and ameliorate the potentially adverse effects of factors such as workload, competing priorities, shift changes, and handoffs should be explored. Exposing intensivists to long term patient outcomes, formalizing nursing input, providing additional training, and emphasizing firsthand knowledge of patient wishes may improve decision making.
    Intensive Care Medicine 04/2013; 39(6). DOI:10.1007/s00134-013-2896-x · 7.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose of review: Although providing palliative care in the ICU has become a priority, the success of different methods to integrate palliative care into the ICU has varied. This review examines the current evidence supporting the different models of palliative care delivery and highlights areas for future study. Recent findings: The need for palliative care for ICU patients is substantial. A large percentage of patients meet criteria for palliative care consultation and there is frequent use of intensive care and other nonbeneficial care at the end of life. Overall, the consultative model of palliative care appears to have more of an impact on patient care. However, given the current workforce shortage of palliative care providers, a sustainable model of delivering palliative care requires both an effective integrative model, in which palliative care is delivered by ICU clinicians, and appropriate use of the consultative model, in which palliative care consultation is reserved for patients at highest risk of having unmet or long-term palliative care needs. Summary: Developing a mixed model of palliative care delivery is necessary to meet the palliative care needs of critically ill patients. Efforts focused on improving integrative models and appropriately targeting the use of palliative care consultants are needed.
    Current Opinion in Critical Care 09/2014; 20(6). DOI:10.1097/MCC.0000000000000149 · 2.62 Impact Factor

  • Critical Care Medicine 10/2014; 42(10):2299-2300. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000466 · 6.31 Impact Factor
Show more