Sara L. Douglas

Patient outcomes for the chronically critically ill: special care unit versus intensive care unit.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a low-technology environment of care and a nurse case management case delivery system (special care unit, SCU) with the traditional high-technology environment (ICU) and primary nursing care delivery system on the patient outcomes of length of stay, mortality, readmission, complications, satisfaction, and cost. A sample of 220 chronically critically ill patients were randomly assigned to either the SCU (n = 145) or the ICU (n = 75). Few significant differences were found between the two groups in length of stay, mortality, or complications. However, the findings showed significant cost savings in the SCU group in the charges accrued during the study period and in the charges and costs to produce a survivor. The average total cost of delivering care was

Effectiveness Trial of an Intensive Communication Structure for Families of Long-Stay ICU Patients

5,000 less per patient in the SCU than in the traditional ICU. In addition, the cost to produce a survivor was

Work productivity and health of informal caregivers of persons with advanced cancer.

19,000 less in the SCU. Results from this 4-year clinical trial demonstrate that nurse case managers in a SCU setting can produce patient outcomes equal to or better than those in the traditional ICU care environment for long-term critically ill patients.

The cost-effectiveness of a special care unit to care for the chronically critically ill.

BACKGROUND Formal family meetings have been recommended as a useful approach to assist in goal setting, facilitate decision making, and reduce use of ineffective resources in the ICU. We examined patient outcomes before and after implementation of an intensive communication system (ICS) to test the effect of regular, structured formal family meetings on patient outcomes among long-stay ICU patients. METHODS One hundred thirty-five patients receiving usual care and communication were enrolled as the control group, followed by enrollment of intervention patients (n = 346), from five ICUs. The ICS included a family meeting within 5 days of ICU admission and weekly thereafter. Each meeting discussed medical update, values and preferences, and goals of care; treatment plan; and milestones for judging effectiveness of treatment. RESULTS Using multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences between control and intervention patients in length of stay (LOS), the primary end point. Similarly, there were no significant differences in indicators of aggressiveness of care or treatment limitation decisions (ICU mortality, LOS, duration of ventilation, treatment limitation orders, or use of tracheostomy or percutaneous gastrostomy). Exploratory analysis suggested that in the medical ICUs, the intervention was associated with a lower prevalence of tracheostomy among patients who died or had do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders in place. CONCLUSIONS The negative findings of the main analysis, in combination with preliminary evidence of differences among types of unit, suggest that further examination of the influence of patient, family, and unit characteristics on the effects of a system of regular family meetings may be warranted. Despite the lack of influence on patient outcomes, structured family meetings may be an effective approach to meeting information and support needs. TRIAL REGISTRY ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01057238 ; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The relationship between optimism and quality of life in newly diagnosed cancer patients.

The purpose of this study was to describe health promotion behaviors and work productivity loss in informal caregivers of individuals with advanced stage cancer. Using a cross-sectional, correlational design, 70 caregivers completed measures of health behaviors, mood, social support, and burden. Absenteeism and presenteeism were evaluated in employed caregivers (n = 40). Caregivers reported low levels of physical activity. The mean percentage of work productivity loss due to caregiving was 22.9%. Greater work productivity loss was associated with greater number of caregiving hours, higher cancer stage, married status, and greater anxiety, depression, and burden related to financial problems, disrupted schedule, and health. Nurses should assess caregivers and provide health promotion interventions, which may ultimately reduce the economic impact of caregiving.

Survival experience of chronically critically ill patients.

To assess the relative value of healthcare programs, technologic innovations, and clinical decisions, policymakers are searching for ways to evaluate cost-effectiveness. What constitutes cost-effectiveness and how should it be measured? The authors discuss ways in which the cost-effectiveness of clinical programs can be measured and describes various methods of assessing both costs and effectiveness. Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of a nurse managed special care unit with that of traditional intensive care units illustrates some of these methods.

Needs of Older Caregivers of Patients with Advanced Cancer

Background: Understanding the relationships between social and psychological determinants of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a critical step in developing effective screening tools and targeted interventions for psychosocial care. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between dispositional optimism and HRQOL in newly diagnosed adult cancer patients. Methods: A cross-sectional, predictive correlational design was used. The sample consisted of 163 patients with mixed diagnoses and stages who were within 180 days since diagnosis and had completed a battery of psychosocial measures upon enrollment into a psychosocial data registry during their first outpatient visit or treatment. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine predictors of HRQOL. Results: Optimism was significantly correlated with spiritual well-being, anxiety, depression, and HRQOL. Optimism was not a significant predictor of HRQOL at initial diagnosis and treatment when age, scores on functional status, spiritual well-being, depression, and anxiety were entered into the regression equation. Conclusion: Dispositional optimism is not a primary factor in HRQOL at initial diagnosis and treatment. Further exploration is needed to determine if optimism exerts a greater influence on HRQOL at another point along the cancer trajectory and if there is overlap between the constructs of optimism and spirituality. Implications for Practice: Although systematic screening for dispositional optimism is not recommended, patients who display characteristics associated with low optimism require further assessment. Also, patients with poor functional status, young age, low levels of spirituality, and high levels of depression may be vulnerable for poor HRQOL.

Neglect of quality-of-life considerations in intensive care unit family meetings for long-stay intensive care unit patients

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients were randomly assigned to either a traditional ICU or a special care unit (SCU) for chronically critically ill patients. The SCU used a low-technology, family-oriented environment, nursing case management, no physician house staff, and a shared governance model. In comparison, the ICU used high technology, limited family visiting, primary care nursing, and a bureaucratic management model. The survival experience of chronically critically ill patients in the two environments during hospitalization, as well as after hospital discharge, was examined. Using survival analytic techniques, the 1-year cumulative mortality for all patients in the study was found to be 59.9%. Risk of death was significantly lower after discharge than during hospitalization. Similar mortality experiences were found for SCU and ICU patients. Thus, the high-technology ICU environment did not produce better outcomes than the SCU environment.

Depression among white and nonwhite caregivers of the chronically critically ill

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether age or stage of cancer can be used to identify caregivers at high risk for excessive burden or distress.

Use of advance directives in the chronically critically ill.

Objective: To examine the frequency with which quality of life and treatment limitation were discussed in formal family meetings for long-stay intensive care unit patients with high risk for mortality and morbidity. Design: Descriptive observational study. Setting: Five intensive care units. Patients: One hundred sixteen family surrogate decisionmakers of long-stay intensive care unit patients who participated in an intensive communication system that aimed to provide weekly meetings with family decisionmakers. The structure of each meeting was to address medical update, patient preferences, treatment plan, and milestones for evaluating the treatment plan. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: We audiotaped initial family meetings for 116 family decisionmakers for a total of 180 meetings. On average, meetings were 24 mins long with a majority of time being devoted to nonemotional speech and little (12%) spent discussing patient preferences. Quality of life was discussed in 45% and treatment limitation in 23% of all meetings. Quality-of-life discussions were more likely to occur when patients were admitted to a medical intensive care unit (odds ratio [OR] 5.9; p = .005), have a family decisionmaker who is a spouse (OR 9.4; p = .0001), were older (OR 1.04; p = 01), have a shorter length of stay (OR 0.93; p = .001), and have a family decisionmaker who was a spouse (OR 5.1; p = .002). For those with a treatment limitation discussion, 67% had a do-not-resuscitate order, 40% were admitted to a medical intensive care unit, 56% had a family decisionmaker who had been their caregiver, and 48% of their family decisionmakers were their children. Conclusions: To guide discussion with families of the subset of intensive care unit patients with high risk of mortality and long-term morbidity, quality of life was not consistently addressed. Continued efforts to assist clinicians in routinely including discussions of quality-of-life outcomes is needed.