The use of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders has increased but many are placed late in the dying process. This study is to determine the association between the timing of DNR order placement in the ...intensive care unit (ICU) and nurses' perceptions of patients' distress and quality of death.
200 ICU patients and the nurses (n = 83) who took care of them during their last week of life were enrolled from the medical ICU and cardiac care unit of New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine in Manhattan and the surgical ICU at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Nurses were interviewed about their perceptions of the patients' quality of death using validated measures. Patients were divided into 3 groups-no DNR, early DNR, late DNR placement during the patient's final ICU stay. Logistic regression analyses modeled perceived patient quality of life as a function of timing of DNR order placement. Patient's comorbidities, length of ICU stay, and procedures were also included in the model.
59 patients (29.5%) had a DNR placed within 48 hours of ICU admission (early DNR), 110 (55%) placed after 48 hours of ICU admission (late DNR), and 31 (15.5%) had no DNR order placed. Compared to patients without DNR orders, those with an early but not late DNR order placement had significantly fewer non-beneficial procedures and lower odds of being rated by nurses as not being at peace (Adjusted Odds Ratio namely AOR = 0.30; CI = 0.09-0.94), and experiencing worst possible death (AOR = 0.31; CI = 0.1-0.94) before controlling for procedures; and consistent significance in severe suffering (AOR = 0.34; CI = 0.12-0.96), and experiencing a severe loss of dignity (AOR = 0.33; CI = 0.12-0.94), controlling for non-beneficial procedures.
Placement of DNR orders within the first 48 hours of the terminal ICU admission was associated with fewer non-beneficial procedures and less perceived suffering and loss of dignity, lower odds of being not at peace and of having the worst possible death.
Data on the prevalence of alopecia areata (AA) in Japan is limited and the epidemiology of the disease there is not well understood; therefore, it is critical to examine the prevalence and severity ...of AA in Japan to inform the need for future treatments and research. A cross‐sectional, web‐based survey was conducted in Japan from January through March 2021. A total of 45 006 participants were identified through general population survey panels and asked about their experience with AA and hair loss. The Alopecia Assessment Tool and the Scalp Hair Assessment PROTM were adopted to screen for history of AA and assess disease severity, respectively. Eligible participants submitted photos of their scalp, which were reviewed by three board‐certified dermatologists to evaluate the presence and severity of AA. Prevalence and severity estimates were calculated using participants' self‐reported data and verified through the dermatologists' assessments. The participant‐reported point prevalence of AA was 2.18%. The adjusted point prevalence following physician adjudication using participant‐submitted photos was 1.45%. Topical corticosteroids were the most commonly used treatments, with 34.6% of participants diagnosed with AA reported having ever used them. Participants also reported negative impacts on their mood (70.2%), self‐esteem (55.8%), and social interactions (48.9%). Despite the social and emotional impact of hair loss, more than one third of those reporting a physician diagnosis of AA were not currently seeking treatment. The current study identified an estimated prevalence of AA in Japan between 1.45% and 2.18% based on the survey results and physician‐adjudication of those findings. Considering the impactful psychological burden of AA, the survey results showing that 38.90% of surveyed patients do not currently seek treatment may indicate an unmet need for remedies.
Study Design:
Meta-analysis-based calculation.
Objectives:
Lumbar degenerative spine disease (DSD) is a common cause of disability, yet a reliable measure of its global burden does not exist. We ...sought to quantify the incidence of lumbar DSD to determine the overall worldwide burden of symptomatic lumbar DSD across World Health Organization regions and World Bank income groups.
Methods:
We used a meta-analysis to create a single proportion of cases of DSD in patients with low back pain (LBP). Using this information in conjunction with LBP incidence rates, we calculated the global incidence of individuals who have DSD and LBP (ie, their DSD has neurosurgical relevance) based on the Global Burden of Disease 2015 database.
Results:
We found that 266 million individuals (3.63%) worldwide have DSD and LBP each year; the highest and lowest estimated incidences were found in Europe (5.7%) and Africa (2.4%), respectively. Based on population sizes, low- and middle-income countries have 4 times as many cases as high-income countries. Thirty-nine million individuals (0.53%) worldwide were found to have spondylolisthesis, 403 million (5.5%) individuals worldwide with symptomatic disc degeneration, and 103 million (1.41%) individuals worldwide with spinal stenosis annually.
Conclusions:
A total of 266 million individuals (3.63%) worldwide were found to have DSD and LBP annually. Significantly, data quality is higher in high-income countries, making overall quantification in low- and middle-income countries less complete. A global effort to address degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine in regions with high demand is important to reduce disability.
Frailty is a well-established marker of poor outcomes in geriatric trauma patients. There are few interventions to improve outcomes in this growing population. Our goal was to determine if an ...interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients improved in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.
This was a retrospective cohort study of frail patients ≥65 years old, admitted to the trauma service at an academic, urban level I trauma center between 2015 and 2017. Patients transferred to other services and those who died within the first 24 hours were excluded. An interdisciplinary protocol for frail trauma patients, including early ambulation, bowel/pain regimens, nonpharmacologic delirium prevention, nutrition/physical therapy consults, and geriatrics assessments, was implemented in 2016. Our main outcomes were delirium, complications, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day readmission, which were compared with these outcomes in patients treated the year before the pathway was implemented. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association of being on the pathway with outcomes.
There were 125 and 144 frail patients in the pre- and post-intervention cohorts, respectively. There were no significant demographic differences between the 2 groups. Among both groups, the mean age was 83.51 years (SD 7.11 years), 60.59% were female, and median Injury Severity Score was 10 (interquartile range 9 to 14). In univariate analysis, there were no significant differences in complications (28.0% vs 28.5%, respectively, p = 0.93); however, there was a significant decrease in delirium (21.6% to 12.5%, respectively, p = 0.04) and 30-day readmission (9.6% to 2.7%, respectively, p = 0.01). After adjusting for patient characteristics, patients on the pathway had lower delirium (odds ratio OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.88, p = 0.02) and 30-day readmission rates (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.84, p = 0.02), than pre-pathway patients.
An interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreases their delirium and 30-day readmission risk. Implementing pathways standardizing care for these vulnerable patients could improve their outcomes after trauma.
Defining Serious Illness Among Adult Surgical Patients Lee, Katherine C., MD, MSc; Walling, Anne M., MD, PhD; Senglaub, Steven S., MS ...
Journal of pain and symptom management,
11/2019, Letnik:
58, Številka:
5
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
AbstractContextPalliative care (PC) for seriously ill surgical patients, including aligning treatments with patients' goals and managing symptoms, is associated with improved patient-oriented ...outcomes and decreased health care utilization. However, efforts to integrate PC alongside restorative surgical care are limited by the lack of a consensus definition for serious illness in the perioperative context. ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to develop a serious illness definition for surgical patients and identify a denominator for quality measurement efforts. MethodsWe developed a preliminary definition including a set of criteria for 11 conditions and health states. Using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method, a 12-member expert advisory panel rated the criteria for each condition and health state twice, once after an in-person moderated discussion, for validity (primary outcome) and feasibility of measurement. ResultsAll panelists completed both rounds of rating. All 11 conditions and health states defining serious illness for surgical patients were rated as valid. During the in-person discussion, panelists refined and narrowed criteria for two conditions (vulnerable elder, heart failure). The final definition included the following 11 conditions and health states: vulnerable elder, heart failure, advanced cancer, oxygen-dependent pulmonary disease, cirrhosis, end-stage renal disease, dementia, critical trauma, frailty, nursing home residency, and American Society of Anesthesiology Risk Score IV-V. ConclusionWe identified a consensus definition for serious illness in surgery. Opportunities remain in measuring the prevalence, identifying health trajectories, and developing screening criteria to integrate PC with restorative surgical care.
OBJECTIVE:Develop quality indicators that measure access to and the quality of primary PC delivered to seriously ill surgical patients
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:PC for seriously ill surgical ...patients, including aligning treatments with patients’ goals and managing symptoms, is associated with improved patient-oriented outcomes and decreased healthcare utilization. However, efforts to integrate PC alongside restorative surgical care are limited by a lack of surgical quality indicators to evaluate primary PC delivery.
METHODS:We developed a set of 27 preliminary indicators that measured palliative processes of care across the surgical episode, including goals of care, decision-making, symptom assessment, and issues related to palliative surgery. Then using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness method, a 12-member expert advisory panel rated the validity (primary outcome) and feasibility of each indicator twice(1) remotely and (2) after an in-person moderated discussion
RESULTS:After 2 rounds of rating, 24 indicators were rated as valid, covering the preoperative evaluation (9 indicators), immediate preoperative readiness (2 indicators), intraoperative (1 indicator), postoperative (8 indicators), and end of life (4 indicators) phases of surgical care.
CONCLUSIONS:This set of quality indicators provides a comprehensive set of process measures that possess the potential to measure high quality PC for seriously ill surgical patients throughout the surgical episode
Defining high quality palliative care in seriously ill surgical patients is essential to provide patient-centered surgical care. Quality indicators specifically for seriously ill surgical patients ...are necessary in order to integrate palliative care into existing surgical quality improvement programs.
To identify existing quality indicators that measure palliative care delivery in seriously ill surgical patients, characterize their development, and assess their methodological quality.
A PRISMA-guided systematic review included studies that reported on the development process and characteristics of palliative care quality indicators and guidelines in adult surgical patients. Relevant measures were categorized into the previously defined National Consensus Project domains of palliative care and the Donabedian quality framework, and assessed for methodological quality.
There were 263 unique measures identified from 26 studies, of which 70% were process measures. Indicators addressing Care of the Patient Near the End of Life (31.5%) and Physical Aspects of Care (20.8%) were the most common. Indicators addressing Spiritual (2.6%) and Cultural Aspects of Care (1.2%) were the least common. Methodological quality varied widely across studies. Although most studies defined a purpose for the indicators and used scientific evidence, many studies lacked input from target populations and few had discussed the practical application of indicators.
This review was a key step that informed efforts to develop quality indicators for seriously ill surgical patients. Few indicators addressed non-physical aspects of suffering and no indicators were identified addressing palliative surgery. Future attention is needed toward the development and practical application of palliative care quality indicators in surgical patients.
Purpose: The evolving treatment landscape in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma creates challenges for clinicians and patients in selecting the most appropriate therapy. Here, we aimed to ...understand adjuvant treatment preferences among patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection, including tradeoffs between efficacy outcomes and toxicity risks. Patients and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study utilizing a discrete choice experiment was conducted across the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany via a web-based survey. Patients greater than or equal to18 years of age who self-reported as having been diagnosed with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were included. Patients indicated their preferences between hypothetical treatment profiles varying in eight attributes relating to efficacy, regimen, and side effects. Preference weights were estimated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression; relative attribute importance estimates were calculated. Results: Overall, 207 patients were included (age greater than or equal to56 years, 65.7%; male, 54.1%). Patients chose adjuvant treatment 91.2% of the time vs no treatment. Prolonging overall survival from 25 to 78 months was most important, followed by reducing serious side effect risks. Increasing disease-free survival from 12 to 24 months was more important than decreasing risks of fatigue from 54% to 15% and nausea from 53% to 7%. Treatment with the shortest dosing regimen was more important for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy; prolonging overall survival was more important than reducing the risk of a serious side effect in non-US patients; the opposite was found in the United States. Conclusion: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection preferred adjuvant treatment over no treatment regardless of side effects. Patients prioritized overall survival improvements followed by a reduced side effect profile. Keywords: bladder cancer, discrete choice experiment, muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma, patient treatment preferences
Abstract only
454
Background: Patient preference is an important factor in selecting appropriate treatment choices. Although underutilized, the standard of care for MIUC is with NAC, whereas evidence ...for adjuvant therapy is less clear. With the introduction of novel adjuvant treatments such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, treatment options are expected to expand. This study examines whether preferences for adjuvant therapy is impacted in MIUC patients receiving NAC. Methods: A cross-sectional, web-based survey included patients ≥ 18 years old who self-reported being diagnosed with MIUC and underwent radical cystectomy or nephroureterectomy without recurrence. Patients were recruited from the US, UK, Canada, France, and Germany (May–Sep 2021). A DCE using 2 adjuvant treatment profiles included 8 attributes: cancer-free survival, overall survival (OS), hypothyroidism requiring life-long hormone therapy, risk of a serious adverse event (requiring medical intervention/possible hospitalization), nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, and a dosing regimen (frequency of treatment and monitoring); an opt-out option of no treatment was also shown. Patients were grouped according to self-reported receipt of NAC. Descriptive statistics and hierarchical Bayesian logistic model with estimated preference weights were used. Relative importance estimates (mean ± standard error), or how much the attribute ranges accounted for the variation in preferences, were computed for each attribute. Bivariate comparisons used t-tests. Results: This interim analysis identified 205 patients (70.7% of target sample; US, n = 99; Germany, n = 60; UK, n = 31; Canada, n = 14; France, n = 1). Of 82 patients (40.0%) receiving NAC, 32.7% were patients > 65 years and 55.1% were male; receipt of NAC did not differ by age ( P = 0.248) or sex ( P = 0.731). Patients were willing to accept increased risk in toxicities for increased treatment efficacy. Specifically, mean relative importance of treatment attributes showed that difference in median OS (25 months compared to 78 months) was most important (34.6% ± 1.6), although less so for those who did not receive NAC (30.2% ± 2.4 vs 37.5% ± 2.0; P = 0.022). Patients chose an adjuvant treatment option over ‘no treatment’ 91% of the time, with similar findings by NAC status. Conclusions: Preliminary data indicates that receipt of NAC impacts preferences for adjuvant treatment attributes. However, regardless of these attributes, patients still preferred adjuvant treatment over none. These results suggest that providing standard of care NAC does not reduce patient preference for adjuvant therapy; rather, patient preferences for adjuvant treatment attributes vary by treatment history, with implications for improving quality of care and outcomes.
PDF
