Great differences in end-of-life practices in treating the critically ill around the world warrant agreement regarding the major ethical principles. This analysis determines the extent of worldwide consensus for end-of-life practices, delineates where there is and is not consensus, and analyzes reasons for lack of consensus. Critical care societies worldwide were invited to participate. Country coordinators were identified and draft statements were developed for major end-of-life issues and translated into six languages. Multidisciplinary responses using a web-based survey assessed agreement or disagreement with definitions and statements linked to anonymous demographic information. Consensus was prospectively defined as >80% agreement. Definitions and statements not obtaining consensus were revised based on comments of respondents, and then translated and redistributed. Of the initial 1,283 responses from 32 countries, consensus was found for 66 (81%) of the 81 definitions and statements; 26 (32%) had >90% agreement. With 83 additional responses to the original questionnaire (1,366 total) and 604 responses to the revised statements, consensus could be obtained for another 11 of the 15 statements. Consensus was obtained for informed consent, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, legal requirements, intensive care unit therapies, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shared decision making, medical and nursing consensus, brain death, and palliative care. Consensus was obtained for 77 of 81 (95%) statements. Worldwide consensus could be developed for the majority of definitions and statements about end-of-life practices. Statements achieving consensus provide standards of practice for end-of-life care; statements without consensus identify important areas for future research.

This pilot study demonstrated that ERACS is feasible and has the potential for improved postoperative morbidity after cardiac surgery. A larger multicenter quality improvement study implementing perioperative care bundles would be the next step to further assess outcomes in ERACS patients.

BackgroundWith increasingly intensive treatments and population ageing, more people face complex treatment and care decisions. We explored patterns of the decision-making processes during critical care, and sources of conflict and resolution.MethodsEthnographic study in two Intensive Care Units (ICUs) in an inner city hospital comprising: non-participant observation of general care and decisions, followed by case studies where treatment limitation decisions, comfort care and/or end of life discussions were occurring. These involved: semi-structured interviews with consenting families, where possible, patients; direct observations of care; and review of medical records.ResultsInitial non-participant observation included daytime, evenings, nights and weekends. The cases were 16 patients with varied diagnoses, aged 19-87 years; 19 family members were interviewed, aged 30-73 years. Cases were observed for <1 to 156 days (median 22), depending on length of ICU admission. Decisions were made serially over the whole trajectory, usually several days or weeks. We identified four trajectories with distinct patterns: curative care from admission; oscillating curative and comfort care; shift to comfort care; comfort care from admission. Some families considered decision-making a negative concept and preferred uncertainty. Conflict occurred most commonly in the trajectories with oscillating curative and comfort care. Conflict also occurred inside clinical teams. Families were most often involved in decision-making regarding care outcomes and seemed to find it easier when patients switched definitively from curative to comfort care. We found eight categories of decision-making; three related to the care outcomes (aim, place, response to needs) and five to the care processes (resuscitation, decision support, medications/fluids, monitoring/interventions, other specialty involvement).ConclusionsDecision-making in critical illness involves a web of discussions regarding the potential outcomes and processes of care, across the whole disease trajectory. When measures oscillate between curative and comfort there is greatest conflict. This suggests a need to support early communication, especially around values and preferred care outcomes, from which other decisions follow, including DNAR. Offering further support, possibly with expert palliative care, communication, and discussion of ‘trial of treatment’ may be beneficial at this time, rather than waiting until the ‘end of life’.

ObjectivesTo understand healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the benefits and potential harms of integrated care pathways for end-of-life care, to inform the development of future interventions that aim to improve care of the dying.DesignQualitative interview study with maximum variation sampling and thematic analysis.Participants25 healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, interviewed in 2009.SettingA 950-bed South London teaching hospital.Results4 main themes emerged, each including 2 subthemes. Participants were divided between (1) those who described mainly the benefits of integrated care pathways, and (2) those who talked about potential harms. Benefits focused on processes of care, for example, clearer, consistent and comprehensive actions. The recipients of these benefits were staff members themselves, particularly juniors. For others, this perceived clarity was interpreted as of potential harm to patients, where over-reliance on paperwork lead to prescriptive, less thoughtful care, and an absolution from decision-making. Independent of their effects on patient care, integrated care pathways for dying had (3) a symbolic value: they legitimised death as a potential outcome and were used as a signal that the focus of care had changed. However, (4) a weak infrastructure, including scanty education and training in end-of-life care and a poor evidence base, that appeared to undermine the foundations on which the Liverpool Care Pathway was built.ConclusionsThe potential harms of integrated care pathways for the dying identified in this study were reminiscent of criticisms subsequently published by the Neuberger review. These data highlight: (1) the importance of collecting, reporting and using qualitative data when developing and evaluating complex interventions; (2) that comprehensive education and training in palliative care is critical for the success of any new intervention; (3) the need for future interventions to be grounded in patient-centred outcomes, not just processes of care.

The utilization and effectiveness of a hospital preoperative autologous blood donation program were analyzed. Over 16 months, 180 donors, or 11.6 percent of eligible patients (those undergoing elective surgical procedures where blood was routinely crossmatched), were enrolled in the program. They donated an average of 2.2 units of red cells, or 59 percent of the mean order of 3.7 units. Donations were completed in 17.9 days, leaving 10.7 days between the last donation and hospitalization. Of all scheduled donations, 25.5 percent were cancelled due to deferrals; 47.8 percent of patients were deferred at least once. Most patients were able to donate a unit of blood weekly, with minimal drops in hematocrit (mean 3.2%). The reaction rate, 4.8 percent, was comparable to figures reported for homologous donors. Nearly two-thirds of participants used no homologous blood during their hospitalization: 28.6 percent used no blood whatsoever, and 36.9 percent used only autologous components. Including released autologous components subsequently administered to other recipients, transfused autologous red cells were 2.1 percent and fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) 7.2 percent of the hospital's blood supply. Although the high deferral rate complicated the administration of the program, this complication was offset by the demonstration of donor safety, reduction in the proportion of patients who used homologous blood, and the contribution of autologous blood components to the hospital's blood inventory.