Rationale: During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) have shifted communication with patients’ families toward chiefly telehealth methods (phone and video) to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Family and clinician perspectives about phone and video communication in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet well understood. Increased knowledge about clinicians’ and families’ experiences with telehealth may help to improve the quality of remote interactions with families during periods of hospital visitor restrictions during COVID-19. Objectives: To explore experiences, perspectives, and attitudes of family members and ICU clinicians about phone and video interactions during COVID-19 hospital visitor restrictions. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interviewing study with an intentional sample of 21 family members and 14 treating clinicians of cardiothoracic and neurologic ICU patients at an academic medical center in April 2020. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with each participant. We used content analysis to develop a codebook and analyze interview transcripts. We specifically explored themes of effectiveness, benefits and limitations, communication strategies, and discordant perspectives between families and clinicians related to remote discussions. Results: Respondents viewed phone and video communication as somewhat effective but inferior to in-person communication. Both clinicians and families believed phone calls were useful for information sharing and brief updates, whereas video calls were preferable for aligning clinician and family perspectives. Clinicians and families expressed discordant views on multiple topics—for example, clinicians worried they were unsuccessful in conveying empathy remotely, whereas families believed empathy was conveyed successfully via phone and video. Communication strategies suggested by families and clinicians for remote interactions include identifying a family point person to receive updates, frequently checking family understanding, positioning the camera on video calls to help family see the patient and their clinical setting, and offering time for the family and patient to interact without clinicians participating. Conclusions: Telehealth communication between families and clinicians of ICU patients appears to be a somewhat effective alternative when in-person communication is not possible. Use of communication strategies specific to phone and video can improve clinician and family experiences with telehealth.

Aim: We explored preferences for prognostic test performance characteristics and error tolerance in decisions regarding withdrawal or continuation of life-sustaining therapy (LST) after cardiac arrest in a diverse cohort of medical providers. Methodology: We distributed a survey through professional societies and research networks. We asked demographic characteristics, preferences for prognostic test performance characteristics and views on acceptable false positive rates for decisions about LST after cardiac arrest. Results: Overall, 640 respondents participated in our survey. Most respondents were attending physicians (74%) with >10 years of experience (59%) and practiced at academic centers (77%). Common specialties were neurology (22%), neuro-or general critical care (24%) and palliative care (31%). The majority (56%) felt an acceptable FPR for withdrawal of LST from patients who

OBJECTIVES: To measure the frequency of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis among decedents in hospitals of different sizes and teaching statuses. DESIGN: We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Four large teaching hospitals, four affiliated small teaching hospitals, and nine affiliated nonteaching hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: We included a sample of all adult inpatient decedents between August 2017 and August 2019. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We reviewed inpatient notes and categorized the immediately preceding circumstances as withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis, withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for nonneurologic reasons, limitations or withholding of life support or resuscitation, cardiac death despite full treatment, or brain death. Of 2,100 patients, median age was 71 years (interquartile range, 60–81 yr), median hospital length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 2–11 d), and 1,326 (63%) were treated at four large teaching hospitals. Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis occurred in 516 patients (25%) and was the sole contributing factor to death in 331 (15%). Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis was common in all hospitals: 30% of deaths at large teaching hospitals, 19% of deaths in small teaching hospitals, and 15% of deaths at nonteaching hospitals. Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis happened frequently across all hospital units. Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis contributed to one in 12 deaths in patients without a primary neurologic diagnosis. After accounting for patient and hospital characteristics, significant between-hospital variability in the odds of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis persisted. CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of inpatient deaths in this cohort occurred after withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis. The rate of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis occurred commonly in all type of hospital settings. We observed significant unexplained variation in the odds of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis across participating hospitals.

No abstract

No abstract