Justine Medina

Proposed quality measures for palliative care in the critically ill: a consensus from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Critical Care Workgroup.

For critically ill patients and their loved ones, high-quality health care includes the provision of excellent palliative care. To achieve this goal, the healthcare system needs to identify, measure, and report specific targets for quality palliative care for critically ill or injured patients. Our objective was to use a consensus process to develop a preliminary set of quality measures to assess palliative care in the critically ill. We built on earlier and ongoing efforts of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Critical Care End-of-Life Peer Workgroup to propose specific measures of the structure and process of palliative care. We used an informal iterative consensus process to identify and refine a set of candidate quality measures. These candidate measures were developed by reviewing previous literature reviews, supplementing the evidence base with recently published systematic reviews and consensus statements, identifying existing indicators and measures, and adapting indicators from related fields for our objective. Among our primary sources, we identified existing measures from the Voluntary Hospital Associations Transformation of the ICU program and a government-sponsored systematic review performed by RAND Health to identify palliative care quality measures for cancer care. Our consensus group proposes 18 quality measures to assess the quality of palliative care for the critically ill and injured. A total of 14 of the proposed measures assess processes of care at the patient level, and four measures explore structural aspects of critical care delivery. Future research is needed to assess the relationship of these measures to desired health outcomes. Subsequent measure sets should also attempt to include outcome measures, such as patient or surrogate satisfaction, as the field develops the means to rigorously measure such outcomes. The proposed measures are intended to stimulate further discussion, testing, and refinement for quality of care measurement and enhancement.

Pain Management Principles in the Critically Ill

This article addresses conventional pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of pain in patients in ICUs. For the critically ill patient, opioids have been the mainstay of pain control. The optimal choice of opioid and dosing regimen for a specific patient varies depending on factors such as the pharmacokinetics and physicochemical characteristics of an opioid and the bodys handling of the opioid, concomitant sedative regimen, potential or actual adverse drug events, and development of tolerance. The clinician must appreciate that favorable pharmacokinetic properties such as a short-elimination half-life do not necessarily translate into clinical advantages in the ICU setting. A variety of medications have been proposed as alternatives or adjuncts to the opioids for pain control that have unique considerations when contemplated for use in the critically ill patient. Most have been relatively unstudied in the ICU setting, and many have limitations with respect to availability of the GI route of administration in patients with questionable GI absorptive function. Nonpharmacologic, complementary therapies are low cost, easy to provide, and safe, and many clinicians can implement them with little difficulty or resources. However, the evidence base for their effectiveness is limited. At present, insufficient research evidence is available to support a broad implementation of nonpharmacologic therapies in ICUs.

Structured Approaches to Pain Management in the ICU

Pain in patients who are critically ill remains undertreated despite decades of research, guideline development and distribution, and intense educational efforts. By nature of their complex medical conditions, these patients present unique challenges to the delivery of optimal pain treatment. Outdated clinical practices and faulty systems, such as a formulary that allows dangerous prescriptions, present additional obstacles. A multidisciplinary and patient-centered continuous quality improvement process is essential to identifying barriers and implementing evidence-based solutions to the problem of undertreated pain in hospital ICUs. This article addresses barriers common to the ICU setting and presents a number of structured approaches that have been shown to be successful in improving pain treatment in patients who are critically ill.

Pain Management Within the Palliative and End-of-Life Care Experience in the ICU*

In the ICU where critically ill patients receive aggressive life-sustaining interventions, suffering is common and death can be expected in up to 20% of patients. High-quality pain management is a part of optimal therapy and requires knowledge and skill in pharmacologic, behavioral, social, and communication strategies grounded in the holistic palliative care approach. This contemporary review article focuses on pain management within comprehensive palliative and end-of-life care. These key points emerge from the transdisciplinary review: (1) all ICU patients experience opportunities for discomfort and suffering regardless of prognosis or goals, thus palliative therapy is a requisite approach for every patient, of which pain management is a principal component; (2) for those dying in the ICU, an explicit shift in management to comfort-oriented care is often warranted and may be the most beneficial treatment the health-care team can offer; (3) communication and cultural sensitivity with the patient-family unit is a principal approach for optimizing palliative and pain management as part of comprehensive ICU care; (4) ethical and legal misconceptions about the escalation of opiates and other palliative therapies should not be barriers to appropriate care, provided the intention of treatment is alleviation of pain and suffering; (5) standardized instruments, performance measurement, and care delivery aids are effective strategies for decreasing variability and improving palliative care in the complex ICU setting; and (6) comprehensive palliative care should addresses family and caregiver stress associated with caring for critically ill patients and anticipated suffering and loss.

Definitive Care for the Critically III During a Disaster : A Framework for Optimizing Critical Care Surge Capacity

Background Plausible disasters may yield hundreds or thousands of critically ill victims. However, most countries, including those with widely available critical care services, lack sufficient specialized staff, medical equipment, and ICU space to provide timely, usual critical care for a large influx of additional patients. Shifting critical care disaster preparedness efforts to augment limited, essential critical care (emergency mass critical care [EMCC]), rather than to marginally increase unrestricted, individual-focused critical care may provide many additional people with access to life-sustaining interventions. In 2007, in response to the increasing concern over a severe influenza pandemic, the Task Force on Mass Critical Care (hereafter called the Task Force) convened to suggest the essential critical care therapeutics and interventions for EMCC. Task Force suggestions EMCC should include the following: (1) mechanical ventilation, (2) IV fluid resuscitation, (3) vasopressor administration, (4) medication administration for specific disease states (eg, antimicrobials and antidotes), (5) sedation and analgesia, and (6) select practices to reduce adverse consequences of critical illness and critical care delivery. Also, all hospitals with ICUs should prepare to deliver EMCC for a daily critical care census at three times their usual ICU capacity for up to 10 days. Discussion By using the Task Force suggestions for EMCC, communities may better prepare to deliver augmented critical care in response to disasters. In light of current mass critical care data limitations, the Task Force suggestions were developed to guide preparedness but are not intended as strict policy mandates. Additional research is required to evaluate EMCC and revise the strategy as warranted.

Definitive Care for the Critically Ill During a Disaster: Medical Resources for Surge Capacity: From a Task Force for Mass Critical Care Summit Meeting, January 26–27, 2007, Chicago, IL

Background Mass numbers of critically ill disaster victims will stress the abilities of health-care systems to maintain usual critical care services for all in need. To enhance the number of patients who can receive life-sustaining interventions, the Task Force on Mass Critical Care (hereafter termed the Task Force) has suggested a framework for providing limited, essential critical care, termed emergency mass critical care (EMCC). This article suggests medical equipment, concepts to expand treatment spaces, and staffing models for EMCC. Methods Consensus suggestions for EMCC were derived from published clinical practice guidelines and medical resource utilization data for the everyday critical care conditions that are anticipated to predominate during mass critical care events. When necessary, expert opinion was used. Task Force major suggestions The Task Force makes the following suggestions: (1) one mechanical ventilator that meets specific characteristics, as well as a set of consumable and durable medical equipment, should be provided for each EMCC patient; (2) EMCC should be provided in hospitals or similarly equipped structures; after ICUs, postanesthesia care units, and emergency departments all reach capacity, hospital locations should be repurposed for EMCC in the following order: (A) step-down units and large procedure suites, (B) telemetry units, and (C) hospital wards; and (3) hospitals can extend the provision of critical care using non-critical care personnel via a deliberate model of delegation to match staff competencies with patient needs. Discussion By using the Task Force suggestions for adequate supplies of medical equipment, appropriate treatment space, and trained staff, communities may better prepare to deliver augmented essential critical care in response to disasters.

Definitive Care for the Critically Ill During a Disaster: A Framework for Optimizing Critical Care Surge Capacity From a Task Force for Mass Critical Care Summit Meeting, January 26-27, 2007, Chicago, IL

Background Plausible disasters may yield hundreds or thousands of critically ill victims. However, most countries, including those with widely available critical care services, lack sufficient specialized staff, medical equipment, and ICU space to provide timely, usual critical care for a large influx of additional patients. Shifting critical care disaster preparedness efforts to augment limited, essential critical care (emergency mass critical care [EMCC]), rather than to marginally increase unrestricted, individual-focused critical care may provide many additional people with access to life-sustaining interventions. In 2007, in response to the increasing concern over a severe influenza pandemic, the Task Force on Mass Critical Care (hereafter called the Task Force) convened to suggest the essential critical care therapeutics and interventions for EMCC. Task Force suggestions EMCC should include the following: (1) mechanical ventilation, (2) IV fluid resuscitation, (3) vasopressor administration, (4) medication administration for specific disease states (eg, antimicrobials and antidotes), (5) sedation and analgesia, and (6) select practices to reduce adverse consequences of critical illness and critical care delivery. Also, all hospitals with ICUs should prepare to deliver EMCC for a daily critical care census at three times their usual ICU capacity for up to 10 days. Discussion By using the Task Force suggestions for EMCC, communities may better prepare to deliver augmented critical care in response to disasters. In light of current mass critical care data limitations, the Task Force suggestions were developed to guide preparedness but are not intended as strict policy mandates. Additional research is required to evaluate EMCC and revise the strategy as warranted.

The critical care crisis in the United States: A report from the profession

Background:The demand for critical care services in the United States is likely to increase as a result of the aging of the population and standards from the Leapfrog Group for intensivist physician staffing. However, the demand for critical care physicians, nurses, and other health professionals will significantly outpace supply because of severe shortages. Participants:This article summarizes recommendations from the Framing Options for Critical Care in the United States (FOCCUS) Task Force, a group comprised of representatives from the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, the College of Chest Physicians, and the American Thoracic Society, to prevent a crisis in American critical care services. Data Sources and Process:Relevant literature was systematically searched by the representatives of each of the professional societies and synthesized with other sources, including official policy statements and guidelines from each of the professional societies, published review articles, expert opinion, nonrandomized historical cohort investigations, and other pertinent studies and sources. Consensus to identify the likely causes of the impending shortfall in critical care personnel, approaches to redesign of critical care practice, and the promotion of critical care excellence was reached via collaboration in direct meetings, telephone conferences, and electronic communications. Four major recommendations were subsequently agreed on to address the projected shortfall in critical care professionals and to improve the quality of critical care delivery. Conclusions:The future demand for critical care services will likely exceed the capacities of the current delivery system. The professional societies and policy makers need to expeditiously intervene and act on these recommendations to ensure that the delivery of critical care services and care to the critically ill does not suffer.

Definitive care for the critically III during a disaster: Medical resources for surge capacity

Background Mass numbers of critically ill disaster victims will stress the abilities of health-care systems to maintain usual critical care services for all in need. To enhance the number of patients who can receive life-sustaining interventions, the Task Force on Mass Critical Care (hereafter termed the Task Force) has suggested a framework for providing limited, essential critical care, termed emergency mass critical care (EMCC). This article suggests medical equipment, concepts to expand treatment spaces, and staffing models for EMCC. Methods Consensus suggestions for EMCC were derived from published clinical practice guidelines and medical resource utilization data for the everyday critical care conditions that are anticipated to predominate during mass critical care events. When necessary, expert opinion was used. Task Force major suggestions The Task Force makes the following suggestions: (1) one mechanical ventilator that meets specific characteristics, as well as a set of consumable and durable medical equipment, should be provided for each EMCC patient; (2) EMCC should be provided in hospitals or similarly equipped structures; after ICUs, postanesthesia care units, and emergency departments all reach capacity, hospital locations should be repurposed for EMCC in the following order: (A) step-down units and large procedure suites, (B) telemetry units, and (C) hospital wards; and (3) hospitals can extend the provision of critical care using non-critical care personnel via a deliberate model of delegation to match staff competencies with patient needs. Discussion By using the Task Force suggestions for adequate supplies of medical equipment, appropriate treatment space, and trained staff, communities may better prepare to deliver augmented essential critical care in response to disasters.

Resource-Poor Settings: Infrastructure and Capacity Building: Care of the Critically Ill and Injured During Pandemics and Disasters: CHEST Consensus Statement

BACKGROUND Planning for mass critical care (MCC) in resource-poor or constrained settings has been largely ignored, despite their large populations that are prone to suffer disproportionately from natural disasters. Addressing MCC in these settings has the potential to help vast numbers of people and also to inform planning for better-resourced areas. METHODS The Resource-Poor Settings panel developed five key question domains; defining the term resource poor and using the traditional phases of disaster (mitigation/preparedness/response/recovery), literature searches were conducted to identify evidence on which to answer the key questions in these areas. Given a lack of data upon which to develop evidence-based recommendations, expert-opinion suggestions were developed, and consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi process. RESULTS The five key questions were then separated as follows: definition, infrastructure and capacity building, resources, response, and reconstitution/recovery of host nation critical care capabilities and research. Addressing these questions led the panel to offer 33 suggestions. Because of the large number of suggestions, the results have been separated into two sections: part 1, Infrastructure/Capacity in this article, and part 2, Response/Recovery/Research in the accompanying article. CONCLUSIONS Lack of, or presence of, rudimentary ICU resources and limited capacity to enhance services further challenge resource-poor and constrained settings. Hence, capacity building entails preventative strategies and strengthening of primary health services. Assistance from other countries and organizations is needed to mount a surge response. Moreover, planning should include when to disengage and how the host nation can provide capacity beyond the mass casualty care event.