Nicolas Meunier-Beillard

Intensive care unit strain should not rush physicians into making inappropriate decisions, but merely reduce the time to the right decisions being made

Deaths in the intensive care unit (ICU) are preceded in 53% to 90% of cases by a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies (1-3). The most common reasons justifying this decision include the patient’s age, previous autonomy, comorbidities, expected future quality of life, diagnosis at admission, non-response to maximal therapy and multi-organ failure (1,3,4).

Non-readmission decisions in the intensive care unit under French rules: A nationwide survey of practices

Purpose We investigated, using a multicentre survey of practices in France, the practices of ICU physicians concerning the decision not to readmit to the ICU, in light of current legislation. Materials and methods Multicentre survey of practices among French ICU physicians via electronic questionnaire in January 2016. Questions related to respondents’ practices regarding re-admission of patients to the ICU and how these decisions were made. Criteria were evaluated by the health care professionals as regards importance for non-readmission. Results In total, 167 physicians agreed to participate, of whom 165 (99%) actually returned a completed questionnaire from 58 ICUs. Forty-five percent were aged <35 years, 74% were full-time physicians. The findings show that decisions for non-readmission are taken at the end of the patient’s stay (87%), using a collegial decision-making procedure (89% of cases); 93% reported that this decision was noted in the patient’s medical file. While 73% indicated that the family/relatives were informed of non-readmission decisions, only 29% reported informing the patient, and 91% considered that non-readmission decisions are an integral part of the French legislative framework. Conclusion This study shows that decisions not to re-admit a patient to the ICU need to be formally materialized, and anticipated by involving the patient and family in the discussions, as well as the other healthcare providers that usually care for the patient. The optimal time to undertake these conversations is likely best decided on a case-by-case basis according to each patient’s individual characteristics.

NAITRE study on the impact of conditional cash transfer on poor pregnancy outcomes in underprivileged women: protocol for a nationwide pragmatic cluster-randomised superiority clinical trial in France

Introduction Prenatal care is recommended during pregnancy to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) are less compliant to recommended prenatal care and suffer a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Several attempts to encourage optimal pregnancy follow-up have shown controversial results, particularly in high-income countries. Few studies have assessed financial incentives to encourage prenatal care, and none reported materno-fetal events as the primary outcome. Our study aims to determine whether financial incentives could improve pregnancy outcomes in women with low SES in a high-income country. Methods and analysis This pragmatic cluster-randomised clinical trial includes pregnant women with the following criteria: (1) age above 18 years, (2) first pregnancy visit before 26 weeks of gestation and (3) belonging to a socioeconomically disadvantaged group. The intervention consists in offering financial incentives conditional on attending scheduled pregnancy follow-up consultations. Clusters are 2-month periods with random turnover across centres. A composite outcome of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints include maternal or neonatal outcomes assessed separately, qualitative assessment of the perception of the intervention and cost-effectiveness analysis for which children will be followed to the end of their first year through the French health insurance database. The study started in June 2016, and based on an expected decrease in the primary endpoint from 18% to 14% in the intervention group, we plan to include 2000 women in each group. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was first gained on 28 September 2014. An independent data security and monitoring committee has been established. Results of the main trial and each of the secondary analyses will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number NCT02402855; pre-results.