ICU specialist opinion is probably the current clinical standard for predicting death within 60 minutes of withdrawal of cardiorespiratory support. This approach is supported by this study, although predictive indices restricted to clinical variables are only marginally inferior. Either approach has a clinically useful level of prediction that would allow ICU service organization to be modified to improve care for patients and families and use ICU beds more efficiently.

This best predictive model missed only 18% of all potential donors. A positive prediction would be incorrect on only 20% of occasions, meaning there is an acceptable level of lost opportunity costs involved in the unnecessary assembly of transplantation teams and theatres.

ObjectiveTo explore end-of-life care in the ward and intensive care unit (ICU) environment in nine Australian hospitals in a retrospective observational study. MethodsIn total, 1693 in-hospital deaths, 356 in ICU, were reviewed, including patient demographics, advance care plans, life-sustaining treatments, recognition of dying by clinicians and evidence of the palliative approach to patient care. ResultsMost patients (n = 1430, 84%) were aged ≥60 years, with a low percentage (n = 208, 12%) having an end-of-life care plan on admission. Following admission, 82% (n = 1391) of patients were recognised as dying, but the time between recognition of dying to death was short (ICU (staying 4–48 h) median 0.34 days (first quartile (Q1), third quartile (Q3): 0.16, 0.72); Ward (staying more than 48 h) median 2.1 days (Q1, Q3: 0.96, 4.3)). Although 41% (n = 621) patients were referred for specialist palliative care, most referrals were within the last few days of life (2.3 days (0.88, 5.9)) and 62% of patients (n = 1047) experienced active intervention in their final 48 h. ConclusionsLate recognition of dying can expose patients to active interventions and minimises timely palliative care. To attain alignment to the National Consensus Statement to improve experiences of end-of-life care, a nationally coordinated approach is needed. What is known about the topic?The majority of Australian patient deaths occur in hospitals whose care needs to align to the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care’s National Consensus Statement, essential elements of safe and high-quality end-of-life care. What does this paper add?The largest Australian study of hospital deaths reveals only 12% of patients have existing advance care plans, recognition of death is predominantly within the last 48 h of life, with 60% receiving investigations and interventions during this time with late symptom relief. What are the implications for practitioners?Given the poor alignment with the National Consensus Statement, a nationally coordinated approach would improve the patient experience of end-of-life care.

IntroductionThe Australian population presenting with surgical pathology is becoming older, frailer and more comorbid. Shared decision-making is rapidly becoming the gold standard of care for patients considering high-risk surgery to ensure that appropriate, value-based healthcare decisions are made. Positive benefits around patient perception of decision-making in the immediacy of the decision are described in the literature. However, short-term and long-term holistic patient-centred outcomes and cost implications for the health service require further examination to better understand the full impact of shared decision-making in this population.MethodsWe propose a novel multidisciplinary shared decision-making model of care in the perioperative period for patients considering high-risk surgery in the fields of general, vascular and head and neck surgery. We assess it in a two arm prospective randomised controlled trial. Patients are randomised to either ‘standard’ perioperative care, or to a multidisciplinary (surgeon, anaesthetist and end-of-life care nurse practitioner or social worker) shared decision-making consultation. The primary outcome is decisional conflict prior to any surgical procedure occurring. Secondary outcomes include the patient’s treatment choice, how decisional conflict changes longitudinally over the subsequent year, patient-centred outcomes including life impact and quality of life metrics, as well as morbidity and mortality. Additionally, we will report on healthcare resource use including subsequent admissions or representations to a healthcare facility up to 1 year.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH13349). Study findings will be presented at local and national conferences and within scientific research journals.Trial registration numberACTRN12619001543178.