End-of-life care and intensive care unit clinician involvement in a private acute care hospital: A retrospective descriptive medical record audit. Issue 5 (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: King, Anthony; Botti, Mari; McKenzie, Dean P.; Barrett, Jonathan; Bloomer, Melissa J.
• Is Part Of: Australian critical care. Volume 34:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 452
• Page End: 459
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: Critical care -- Death -- Decision-making -- End-of-life care -- Hospital rapid response team -- Intensive care units -- Palliative care -- Quality of care; Intensive care nursing -- Periodicals; Intensive care nursing -- Australia -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.028
• DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2020.10.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1036-7314

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: More Australians die in the hospital than in any other setting. This study aimed to (i) evaluate the quality of end-of-life (EOL) care in the hospital against an Australian National Standard, (ii) describe the characteristics of intensive care unit (ICU) clinician involvement in EOL care, and (iii) explore the demographic and clinical factors associated with quality of EOL care. Method: A retrospective descriptive medical record audit was conducted on 297 adult inpatients who died in 2017 in a private acute care hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Data collected related to 20 'Processes of Care', considered to contribute to the quality of EOL care. The decedent sample was separated into three cohorts as per ICU clinician involvement. Results: The median age of the sample was 81 (25th–75th percentile = 72–88) years. The median tally for EOL care quality was 16 (25th–75th percentile = 13–17) of 20 care processes. ICU clinicians were involved in 65.7% ( n = 195) of cases; however, contact with the ICU outreach team or an ICU admission during the final inpatient stay was negatively associated with quality of EOL care (coefficient = −1.51 and −2.07, respectively). Longer length of stay was positively associated with EOL care (coefficient = .05). Specialist palliative care was involved in 53% of cases, but this was less likely for those admitted to the ICU ( p < .001). Evidence of social support, bereavement follow-up, and religious support were low across all cohorts. Conclusion: Statistically significant differences in the quality of EOL care and a negative association between ICU involvement and EOL care quality suggest opportunities for ICU outreach clinicians to facilitate discussion of care goals and the appropriateness of ICU admission. Advocating for inclusion of specialist palliative care and nonclinical support personnel in EOL care has merit. Future research is necessary to investigate the relationship between ICU intervention and EOL care quality.