Among critically ill patients and their surrogates, a family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team did not significantly affect the surrogates' burden of psychological symptoms, but the surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication and the patient- and family-centeredness of care were better and the length of stay in the ICU was shorter with the intervention than with usual care. (Funded by the UPMC Health System and the Greenwall Foundation; PARTNER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844492 .).

No abstract

No abstract

Withdrawal-of-life-sustaining treatments (WOLST) rates vary widely among critically ill neurologic patients (CINPs) and cannot be solely attributed to patient and family characteristics. Research in general critical care has shown that clinicians prognosticate to families with high variability. Little is known about how clinicians disclose prognosis to families of CINPs, and whether any associations exist with WOLST. OBJECTIVES:Primary: to demonstrate feasibility of audio-recording clinicianfamily meetings for CINPs at multiple centers and characterize how clinicians communicate prognosis during these meetings. Secondary: to explore associations of 1) clinician, family, or patient characteristics with clinicians' prognostication approaches and 2) prognostication approach and WOLST. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Forty-three audio-recorded clinician-family meetings during which prognosis was discussed from seven U.S. centers for 39 CINPs with 88 family members and 27 clinicians. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Two investigators qualitatively coded transcripts using inductive methods (inter-rater reliability > 80%) to characterize how clinicians prognosticate. We then applied univariate and multivariable multinomial and binomial logistic regression. RESULTS:Clinicians used four distinct prognostication approaches: Authoritative (21%; recommending treatments without discussing values and preferences); Informational (23%; disclosing just the prognosis without further discussions); advisory (42%; disclosing prognosis followed by discussion of values and preferences); and responsive (14%; eliciting values and preferences, then disclosing prognosis). Before adjustment, prognostication approach was associated with center (p < 0.001), clinician specialty (neurointensivists vs non-neurointensivists; p = 0.001), patient age (p = 0.08), diagnosis (p = 0.059), and meeting length (p = 0.03). After adjustment, only clinician specialty independently predicted prognostication approach (p = 0.027). WOLST decisions occurred in 41% of patients and were most common under the advisory approach (56%). WOLST was more likely in older patients (p = 0.059) and with more experienced clinicians (p = 0.07). Prognostication approach was not independently associated with WOLST (p = 0.198). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:It is feasible to audio-record sensitive clinician-family meetings about CINPs in multiple ICUs. We found that clinicians prognosticate with high variability. Our data suggest that larger studies are warranted in CINPs to examine the role of clinicians' variable prognostication in WOLST decisions.

IntroductionAlthough shortcomings in clinician–family communication and decision making for incapacitated, critically ill patients are common, there are few rigorously tested interventions to improve outcomes. In this manuscript, we present our methodology for the Pairing Re-engineered Intensive Care Unit Teams with Nurse-Driven Emotional support and Relationship Building (PARTNER 2) trial, and discuss design challenges and their resolution.Methods and analysisThis is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the PARTNER 2 intervention to usual care among 690 incapacitated, critically ill patients and their surrogates in five ICUs in Pennsylvania. Eligible subjects will include critically ill patients at high risk of death and/or severe long-term functional impairment, their main surrogate decision-maker and their clinicians. The PARTNER intervention is delivered by the interprofessional ICU team and overseen by 4–6 nurses from each ICU. It involves: (1) advanced communication skills training for nurses to deliver support to surrogates throughout the ICU stay; (2) deploying a structured family support pathway; (3) enacting strategies to foster collaboration between ICU and palliative care services and (4) providing intensive implementation support to each ICU to incorporate the family support pathway into clinicians’ workflow. The primary outcome is surrogates’ ratings of the quality of communication during the ICU stay as assessed by telephone at 6-month follow-up. Prespecified secondary outcomes include surrogates’ scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Impact of Event Scale, the modified Patient Perception of Patient Centredness scale, the Decision Regret Scale, nurses’ scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory, and length of stay during and costs of the index hospitalisation.We also discuss key methodological challenges, including determining the optimal level of randomisation, using existing staff to deploy the intervention and maximising long-term follow-up of participants.Ethics and disseminationWe obtained ethics approval through the University of Pittsburgh, Human Research Protection Office. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT02445937