Surveillance for Pressure Injuries on Admission to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ObjectiveTo determine if the incidence of pressure injuries (PIs) on admission to an inpatient rehabilitation hospital (IRH) system of care was increased during the early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period.DesignRetrospective survey chart review of consecutive cohorts. Admissions to 4 acute IRHs within 1 system of care over the first consecutive 6-week period of admitting patients positive for COVID-19 during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, April 1-May 9, 2020. A comparison was made with the pre–COVID-19 period, January 1-February 19, 2020.SettingFour acute IRHs with admissions on a referral basis from acute care hospitals.ParticipantsA consecutive sample (N=1125) of pre–COVID-19 admissions (n=768) and COVID-19 period admissions (n=357), including persons who were COVID-19–positive (n=161) and COVID-19–negative (n=196).Main Outcome MeasuresIncidence of PIs on admission to IRH.ResultsPrevalence of PIs on admission during the COVID-19 pandemic was increased when compared with the pre–COVID-19 period by 14.9% (P<.001). There was no difference in the prevalence of PIs in the COVID-19 period between patients who were COVID-19–positive and COVID-19–negative (35.4% vs 35.7%). The severity of PIs, measured by the wound stage of the most severe PI the patient presented with, worsened during the COVID-19 period compared with pre–COVID-19 (χ² 32.04%, P<.001). The length of stay in the acute care hospital before transfer to the IRH during COVID-19 was greater than pre–COVID-19 by 10.9% (P<.001).ConclusionsDuring the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic time frame, there was an increase in the prevalence and severity of PIs noted on admission to our IRHs. This may represent the significant burden placed on the health care system by the pandemic, affecting all patients regardless of COVID-19 status. This information is important to help all facilities remain vigilant to prevent PIs as the pandemic continues and potential future pandemics that place strain on medical resources.     

Were Clinical Routines for Good End-of-Life Care Maintained in Hospitals and Nursing Homes During the First Three Months of the Outbreak of COVID-19? A National Register Study

ContextAlthough the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might affect important clinical routines, few studies have focused on the maintenance of good quality in end-of-life care.ObjectivesThe objective was to examine whether adherence to clinical routines for good end-of-life care differed for deaths because of COVID-19 compared with a reference cohort from 2019 and whether they differed between nursing homes and hospitals.MethodsData about five items reflecting clinical routines for persons who died an expected death from COVID-19 during the first three months of the pandemic (March–May 2020) were collected from the Swedish Register of Palliative Care. The items were compared between the COVID-19 group and the reference cohort and between the nursing home and hospital COVID-19 deaths.ResultsAbout 1316 expected deaths were identified in nursing homes and 685 in hospitals. Four of the five items differed for total COVID-19 group compared with the reference cohort: fewer were examined by a physician during the last days before death, pain and oral health were less likely to be assessed, and fewer had a specialized palliative care team consultation (P < 0.0001, respectively). Assessment of symptoms other than pain did not differ significantly. The five items differed between the nursing homes and hospitals in the COVID-19 group, most notably regarding the proportion of persons examined by a physician during the last days (nursing homes: 18%; hospitals: 100%).ConclusionThis national register study shows that several clinical routines for end-of-life care did not meet the usual standards during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Higher preparedness for and monitoring of end-of-life care quality should be integrated into future pandemic plans.     

Caring Advanced Cancer Patients at Home During COVID-19 Outbreak: Burnout and Psychological Morbidity Among Palliative Care Professionals in Italy

ContextProviding palliative care (PC) at home for patients with advanced cancer has become essential during the COVID-19 emergency. Nevertheless, the home PC professionals (PCPs) faced a challenging situation because of increased number of discharged patients, reduced availability of health-care facilities, and physical/relational barriers between them and patients.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on burnout and psychological morbidity among home PCPs in Italy.MethodsOne hundred and ninety-eight PC physicians and nurses working in home assistance in Italy were invited to participate. The results obtained by the investigation conducted during the COVID-19 emergency (COVID2020) were compared with data collected in 2016 in the same setting (BURNOUT2016). The questionnaires (socio-demographics, Maslach Burnout Inventory and General Health Questionnaire-12) were the same for both the surveys. The PCPs participating in COVID2020 survey (n = 145) were mostly the same (70%) who participated in the BURNOUT2016 study (n = 179).ResultsOne hundred and forty-five PCPs participated in the study (response rate 73.2%). During the COVID-19 emergency, home PCPs presented a lower burnout frequency (P < .001) and higher level of personal accomplishment than in 2016 (P = .047). Conversely, the risk for psychological morbidity was significantly higher during the pandemic (P < .001).ConclusionsIn the age of COVID-19, the awareness of being at the forefront of containing the pandemic along with the sense of responsibility toward their high-risk patients may arouse PCPs' psychological distress, but, on the other hand, this condition may improve their sense of professional satisfaction and personal accomplishment.     

Critical care outreach during the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study

Background

Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the Critical Care Outreach Team (CCOT) remained operational to provide critical care support to acutely ill and deteriorating patients on the wards.

Aim

We aimed to evaluate the demand and efficacy of the critical care outreach service during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method

We prospectively evaluated all patients referred to critical care outreach enrolled during a twelve-month period. We reported the cumulative number of activities and interventions and baseline characteristics, acuity level and patients' clinical outcome. The rate of ICU admissions, activity plan, patients' acuity and mortality are compared to historical data pre-pandemic.

Results

Amongst 4849 patients referred, 3913 had a clinical review and of those 895 were COVID-19 positive. Non-invasive ventilation was mostly delivered to COVID-19 patients (COVID-19 +VE: 853/895, 95% vs. COVID-19 −VE: 119/3018, 4%) alongside awake prone positioning (COVID-19 +VE: 232/895, 26% vs. COVID-19 −VE: 0/3018, 0%). Compared to pre-pandemic, the cumulative number of patients assessed increased (observed: 3913 vs. historical: 3615; p = 0.204), patients meeting Level 2 acuity were higher (observed: 51% vs. historical: 21%; p = 0.003), but ICU admission rate did not increase significantly (observed: 12% vs. historical: 9%; p = 0.065), and greater mortality rate (observed: 14% vs. historical: 8%; p = 0.046) was observed.

Conclusion

Critical care outreach bridges the gap between the intensive care unit and general wards and supports the concept of ‘critical care without walls’ acting as a valuable resource in optimizing and triaging acutely unwell patients and potentially averting critical care admissions.

Relevance to Clinical Practice

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an unprecedented surge of deteriorating and critically ill patients with has caused severe and sustained pressures on intensive care units (ICUs) and general wards. Acutely ill patients can deteriorate quickly, and early recognition is vital to commence critical intervention on the wards or transfer timely to ICU. The Critical Care Outreach Team can help staff and optimize acutely ill and deteriorating patients by providing timely critical care interventions at the patient bedside.     

Deep Natural Language Processing Identifies Variation in Care Preference Documentation

ContextDocumentation of care preferences within 48 hours of admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) is a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality metric for older adults. Care preferences are poorly captured by administrative data.ObjectivesUsing deep natural language processing, our aim was to determine the rate of care preference documentation in free-text notes and to assess associated patient factors.MethodsRetrospective review of notes by clinicians using a deep natural language processing to identify care preference documentation, including goals-of-care and treatment limitations, within 48 hours of ICU admission within five ICUs (medical, cardiac, surgery, trauma surgery, and cardiac surgery) for adults 75 years and older. Covariates included demographics, ICU type, sequential organ failure assessment score, and need for mechanical ventilation.ResultsDeep natural language processing reviewed 11,575 clinician notes for 1350 ICU admissions. Median patient age was 84.0 years (interquartile range 78.0–88.4). Overall, 64.7% had documentation of care preferences. Patients with documentation were older (85 vs. 83 years; P < 0.001) and more often female (53.8% vs. 43.4%; P < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, rates of care preference documentation were higher for older patients, females, nonelective admissions, and admissions to the medical vs. the cardiac or surgical ICUs (all P ≤ 0.01).ConclusionCare preference documentation within 48 hours was absent in more than one-third of ICU admissions among patients aged 75 years and older and was more likely to occur in medical vs. cardiac or surgical ICUs.     

Measuring Discharge Outcomes,Length of Stay,and Functional ADL Score During COVID-19 in Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals

ObjectiveTo measure discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and functional activities of daily living (ADL) scores for patients admitted to acute inpatient rehabilitation hospitals (IRHs) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to compare these parameters with a period prior to the pandemic.DesignRetrospective cohort study via systematic retrospective chart review of consecutive patients admitted to IRHs from January 1-February 19, 2020 (pre–COVID-19T), and COVID-19 time period/patients admitted from April 1, 2020-May 9, 2020 (COVID-19T).SettingSystem of 3 IRHs in the Northeastern United States.ParticipantsPre–COVID-19T, n=739; COVID-19T, n=335, of whom n=139 were positive for COVID-19 (COVID+) and n=196 were negative (COVID−) (N=1074).InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresDischarge disposition, LOS, and functional ADL scores.ResultsCOVID-19T patients were younger (P=.03) and less likely to be White (P=.03). These patients also had a higher case mix index (CMI; P<.01), longer acute care LOS (P<.01), and longer IRH LOS (P<.01). Patients who were COVID+ (during COVID-19T) were less likely to be White (P<.01), had lower CMI (P<.01), had higher admission and discharge functional ADL scores (P=.02, P<.01), and had longer acute care LOS compared with those who were COVID− (P<.01). There were no differences in discharge outcomes between pre–COVID-19T and COVID-19T cohorts (P=.75), including when stratified for COVID-19 status (P=.74). Functional ADL scores on admission and discharge were lower in COVID-19T than in pre–COVID-19T (P=.01), including when stratified for COVID-19 status though not significant (P=.06).ConclusionsThere were no differences in discharge outcomes for any group. IRH LOS was significantly increased during the pandemic, but there were no statistically significant differences between the COVID+ and COVID− cohorts within COVID-19T. Functional ADL scores were significantly lower during COVID-19T, but COVID status was not a significant predictor. This suggests that COVID+ status was not a barrier to discharge or functional outcomes. This supports the importance of IRHs to restore function and discharge patients to home, even with a more medically complex COVID-19 pandemic population.     

Mental well-being of intensive care unit nurses after the second surge of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study

ObjectivesTo determine the impact of the second surge of the COVID-19 pandemic (October 2020 to June 2021) on mental well-being of intensive care unit nurses and factors associated with mental health outcomes.MethodsAn online survey was available for Dutch intensive care unit nurses in October 2021, measuring mental health symptoms; anxiety, depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and post-traumatic stress disorder (Impact of Event Scale-6). Additionally, work-related fatigue was measured using the Need For Recovery-11 questionnaire. Previous data from the first surge (March until June 2020) were used to study mental well-being longitudinally in a subgroup of intensive care unit nurses. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with mental health symptoms.ResultsIn total, 589 nurses (mean age 44.8 [SD, 11.9], 430 [73.8 %] females) participated, of whom 164 also completed the questionnaire in 2020. After the second surge, 225/589 (38.2 %) nurses experienced one or more mental health symptoms and 294/589 (49.9 %) experienced work-related fatigue. Compared to the first measurement, the occurrence of mental health symptoms remained high (55/164 [33.5 %] vs 63/164 [38.4 %], p = 0.36) and work-related fatigue was significantly higher (66/164 [40.2 %] vs 83/164 [50.6 %], p = 0.02). Granted holidays as requested (aOR, 0.54; 95 % CI, 0.37–0.79), being more confident about the future (aOR, 0.59; 95 % CI, 0.37–0.93) and a better perceived work-life balance (aOR, 0.42; 95 % CI, 0.27–0.65) were significantly associated with less symptoms.ConclusionThe second surge of the COVID-19 pandemic further drained the mental reserves of intensive care unit nurses, resulting in more work-related fatigue.     

Impact in total ischemic time and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction admissions during COVID-19

BackgroundDespite the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiovascular disease is still the main cause of death in developed countries. Of these deaths, acute coronary syndromes (ACS) account for a substantial percentage of deaths. Improvement in ACS outcomes, are achieved by reducing the time from symptom onset until reperfusion or total ischemic time (TIT). Nevertheless, due to the overwhelming reality at the beginning of the pandemic, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care may have been compromised.ObjectivesWe evaluated delays in TIT based on the date and timing of admissions in patients with STEMI, by a timeline follow-up form, before and during the current COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsBetween July 2018 and June 2020, two hundred and twelve patients diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were admitted to our medical center. Upon presentation, cases were assigned a timeline report sheet and each time interval, from onset of symptoms to the catheterization lab, was documented. The information was later evaluated to study potential excessive delays throughout ACS management.ResultsOur data evidenced that during the COVID-19 pandemic ACS admissions were reduced by 34.54%, in addition to several in-hospital delays in patient's ACS management including delays in door-to-ECG time (9.43 ± 18.21 vs. 18.41 ± 28.34, p = 0.029), ECG-to-balloon (58.25 ± 22.59 vs. 74.39 ± 50.30, p = 0.004) and door-to-balloon time (57.41 ± 27.52 vs. 69.31 ± 54.14, p = 0.04).ConclusionsDuring the pandemic a reduction in ACS admissions occurred in our hospital that accompanied with longer in-hospital TIT due to additional tests, triage, protocols to protect and prevent infection within hospital staff, and maintenance of adequate standards of care. However, door-to-balloon time was maintained under 90 min.     

Examining Disparities and Excess Cardiovascular Mortality Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ObjectiveTo investigate the patterns and demographic features of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and subtypes myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure in the pre–COVID-19 era (2018-2019) vs during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) in the United States.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we used the US Multiple Cause of Death files for 2018 to 2021 to examine the trend of excess cause-specific deaths using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for CVD (I00 to I99), MI (I21 and I22), stroke (I60 to I69), and heart failure (I42 and I50). Our primary outcome was excess mortality from CVD and its 3 subtypes (MI, stroke, and heart failure) between prepandemic (2018-2019) and pandemic (2020-2021) years. We performed a subgroup analysis on race and month-to-month and year-to-year variation using χ² analysis to test statistical significance.ResultsOverall, 3,598,352 CVD deaths were analyzed during the study period. There was a 6.7% excess CVD mortality, 2.5% MI mortality, and 8.5% stroke mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) compared with the prepandemic era (2018-2019). Black individuals had higher excess CVD mortality (13.8%) than White individuals (5.1%; P<.001). This remained consistent across subtypes of CVD, including MI (9.6% vs 1.0%; P<.001), stroke (14.5% vs 6.9%; P<.001), and heart failure (5.1% vs ?1.2%; P<.001).ConclusionThere has been a significant rise in CVD and subtype-specific mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic that has been persistent despite 2 years since the onset of the pandemic. Excess CVD mortality has disproportionately affected Black compared with White individuals. Further studies targeting and eliminating health care disparities are necessary.     

A Hospital-Based Palliative Care Service for Patients With Advanced Organ Failure in Sub-Saharan Africa Reduces Admissions and Increases Home Death Rates

ContextDespite emerging data of cost savings under palliative care in various regions, no such data have been generated in response to the high burden of terminal illness in Africa.ObjectivesThis evaluation of a novel hospital-based palliative care service for patients with advanced organ failure in urban South Africa aimed to determine whether the service reduces admissions and increases home death rates compared with the same fixed time period of standard hospital care.MethodsData on admissions and place of death were extracted from routine hospital activity records for a fixed period before death, using standard patient daily expense rates. Data from the first 56 consecutive deaths under the new service (intervention group) were compared with 48 consecutive deaths among patients immediately before the new service (historical controls).ResultsAmong the intervention and control patients, 40 of 56 (71.4%) and 47 of 48 (97.9%), respectively, had at least one admission (P < 0.001). The mean number of admissions for the intervention and control groups was 1.39 and 1.98, respectively (P < 0.001). The mean total number of days spent admitted for intervention and control groups was 4.52 and 9.3 days, respectively (P < 0.001). For the intervention and control patients, a total of 253 and 447 admission days were recorded, respectively, with formal costs of $587 and $1209, respectively. For the intervention and control groups, home death was achieved by 33 of 56 (58.9%) and nine of 48 (18.8%), respectively (P ≤ 0.001).ConclusionThese data demonstrate that an outpatient hospital-based service reduced admissions and improved the rate of home deaths and offers a feasible and cost-effective model for such settings.     

Examining emergency medical services' prehospital transport times for trauma patients during COVID-19

IntroductionLonger prehospital times were associated with increased odds for survival in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected emergency medical services (EMS) prehospital times for trauma patients.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study compared trauma patients transported via EMS to six US level I trauma centers admitted 1/1/19–12/31/19 (2019) and 3/16/20–6/30/20 (COVID-19). Outcomes included: total EMS pre-hospital time (dispatch to hospital arrival), injury to dispatch time, response time (dispatch to scene arrival), on-scene time (scene arrival to scene departure), and transportation time (scene departure to hospital arrival). Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used, alpha = 0.05. All times are presented as median (IQR) minutes.ResultsThere were 9400 trauma patients transported by EMS: 79% in 2019 and 21% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were similar in demographics and transportation mode. Emergency room deaths were also similar between 2019 and COVID-19 [0.6% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.13].There were no differences between 2019 and during COVID-19 for total EMS prehospital time [44 (33, 63) vs. 43 (33, 62), p = 0.12], time from injury to dispatch [16 (6, 55) vs. 16 (7, 77), p = 0.41], response time [7 (5, 12) for both groups, p = 0.27], or on-scene time [16 (12−22) vs. 17 (12,22), p = 0.31]. Compared to 2019, transportation time was significantly shorter during COVID-19 [18 (13, 28) vs. 17 (12, 26), p = 0.01].ConclusionThe median transportation time for trauma patients was marginally significantly shorter during COVID-19; otherwise, EMS prehospital times were not significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Intensity of Cancer Care Near the End of Life at a Tertiary Care Cancer Center in Jordan

ContextChemotherapy use in the last month of life is an indicator of poor quality of end-of-life care.ObjectivesWe assessed the frequency of chemotherapy use at the end of life at our comprehensive cancer center in Jordan and identified the factors associated with chemotherapy use.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review to examine the use of chemotherapy in the last 30 days and 14 days of life in consecutive adult patients with cancer seen at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) who died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012. We collected data on patient and disease characteristics, palliative care referral, and end-of-life care outcome indicators.ResultsAmong the 1714 decedents, 310 (18.1%) had chemotherapy use in the last 30 days and 142 (8.3%) in the last 14 days of life. Over half (910; 53.1%) had a palliative care referral. Chemotherapy use in the last 30 and 14 days of life were associated with younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.99/yr, P = 0.01, and OR 0.99/yr, P = 0.01, respectively) and hematological malignances (OR 1.98, P < 0.001, and OR 2.85, P < 0.001, respectively). Palliative care referral was significantly associated with decreased use of chemotherapy in the last 30 (OR 0.30, P < 0.001) and 14 (OR 0.15, P < 0.001) days of life.ConclusionsA sizable minority of patients with cancer at KHCC received chemotherapy at the end of life. Younger patients and those with hematological malignancies were more likely to receive chemotherapy, whereas those referred to palliative care were significantly less likely to receive chemotherapy at the end of life.     

Macrovascular Thrombotic Events in a Mayo Clinic Enterprise-Wide Sample of Hospitalized COVID-19–Positive Compared With COVID-19–Negative Patients

ObjectiveTo determine the difference in the rate of thromboembolic complications between hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–positive compared with COVID-19–negative patients.Patients and MethodsAdult patients hospitalized from January 1, 2020, through May 8, 2020, who had COVID-19 testing by polymerase chain reaction assay were identified through electronic health records across multiple hospitals in the Mayo Clinic enterprise. Thrombotic outcomes (venous and arterial) were identified from the hospital problem list.ResultsWe identified 3790 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 testing across 19 hospitals, 102 of whom had positive test results. The median age was lower in the COVID-positive patients (62 vs 67 years; P=.03). The median duration of hospitalization was longer in COVID-positive patients (8.5 vs 4 days; P<.001) and more required intensive care unit care (56.9% [58 of 102] vs 26.8% [987 of 3688]; P<.001). Comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation/flutter, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and malignancy, were observed less frequently with COVID-positive admissions. Any venous thromboembolism was identified in 2.9% of COVID-positive patients (3 of 102) and 4.6% of COVID-negative patients (168 of 3688). The frequency of venous and arterial events was not different between the groups. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for COVID-positive–patients for any venous thromboembolism was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.02). A multivariable logistic regression model evaluated death within 30 days of hospital discharge; neither COVID positivity (adjusted OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.54 to 2.34) nor thromboembolism (adjusted OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.32) was associated with death.ConclusionEarly experience in patients with COVID-19 across multiple academic and regional hospitals representing different US regions demonstrates a lower than previously reported incidence of thrombotic events. This incidence was not higher than a contemporary COVID-negative hospitalized comparator.     

Frequency and Characteristics of First-Time Palliative Care Referrals During the Last Day of Life

ContextPalliative care referrals (PCRs) improve symptom management, provide psychosocial and spiritual support, clarify goals of care, and facilitate discharge planning. However, very late PCR can result in increased clinician distress and prevent patients and families from benefiting from the full spectrum of interdisciplinary care.ObjectivesTo determine the frequency and predictors of PCR within 24 hours of death.MethodsConsecutive first-time inpatient PCR from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017 was identified to determine the frequency and predictors of referrals within 24 hours of death. We compared the clinical characteristics with a random sample of patients discharged alive or died more than 24 hours after first-time PCR as a control, stratified by year of consult in a 1:1 ratio.ResultsOf 7322 first-time PCRs, 154 (2%) died within 24 hours of referral. These patients were older (P = 0.003) and had higher scores for depression (P = 0.0009), drowsiness (P = 0.02), and shortness of breath (P = 0.008) compared with a random sample of 153 patients discharged alive or died more than 24 hours after first-time PCR. Patients who received a PCR within 24 hours of death were more likely than the control group to have Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 4 (95% vs. 25%, P < 0.0001), delirium (89% vs. 17%, P < 0.0001), do-not-resuscitate code status (81% vs. 18%, P < 0.0001), and hematologic malignancies (39% vs. 16%, P < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, depression (odds ratio [OR] 1.4; P = 0.005), do-not-resuscitate code status (OR 9.1; P = 0.003), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 4 (OR 9.8; P = 0.003) were independently associated with first-time PCR within 24 hours of death.ConclusionAlthough only a small proportion of first-time PCR occurred in the last 24 hours of life, the patients had a significant amount of distress, indicating a missed opportunity for timely palliative care intervention. These sentinel events call for specific guidelines to better support patients, families, and clinicians during this difficult time. Further research is needed to understand how to minimize very late PCR.     

Impact of COVID-19 on nursing time in intensive care units in Belgium

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on nursing practice in intensive care unit and consequently, on workload.ObjectiveTo assess the nurse-patient ratio required by COVID-19 patients and to identify the factors that influence nursing in this context.DesignThis study was a retrospective observational study that evaluated the ratio using the Nursing Activities Score (NAS).SettingThree Belgian French-speaking hospitals, including five ICUs. Patients included COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.Measurements and main resultsThe study included 95 COVID-19 patients and 1604 non-COVID-19 patients (control group) resulting in 905 and 5453 NAS measures, respectively. The NAS was significantly higher among the COVID-19 patients than in the control group (p = <0.0001). In the COVID-19 group, these higher scores were also observed per shift and uniformly across the three hospitals. COVID-19 patients required more time in the activities of monitoring and titration (χ2 = 457.60, p = <0.0001), mobilisation (χ2 = 161.21, p = <0.0001), and hygiene (χ2 = 557.77, p = <0.0001). Factors influencing nursing time measured by NAS in the COVID-19 patients were age <65 years old (p = 0.23), the use of continuous venovenous hemofiltration (p = 0.002), a high APACHE II score (p = 0.006) and patient death (p = 0.002). A COVID-19 diagnosis was independently associated with an increase in nursing time (OR = 4.8, 95% CI:3.6–6.4).ConclusionsPatients hospitalised in the ICU due to COVID-19 require significantly more nursing time and need an average ratio of almost 1:1.     

Palliative Sedation in Patients Hospitalized in Internal Medicine Departments

ContextPalliative sedation is used to relieve end-of-life refractory symptoms.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to describe the use of palliative sedation in patients who die in internal medicine departments.MethodsAn observational, cross-sectional, retrospective, and multicenter clinical audit study was conducted in 145 hospitals in Spain and Argentina. Each hospital included the first 10 patients who died in the internal medicine department, starting on December 1, 2015.ResultsWe included 1447 patients, and palliative sedation was administered to 701 patients (48.4%). Having a terminal illness (odds ratio [OR] 2.469, 95% CI 1.971–3.093, P < 0.001) and the length of hospital stay (OR 1.011, 95% CI 1.002–1.021, P = 0.017) were independently associated with the use of palliative sedation. Consent was granted by the families of 582 (83%) patients. The most common refractory symptom was dyspnea, and the most commonly used drugs for sedation were midazolam (77%) and morphine (89.7%). An induction dose was administered in 25.7% of the patients. Rescue doses were scheduled for 70% of the patients, and hydration was maintained in 49.5%. Pain was more common in patients with cancer, whereas dyspnea was more common in those without cancer. Rescue doses were used more often for the patients with cancer (77.8% vs. 67.7%, P = 0.015). Monitoring the palliative sedation with a scale was more frequent in the patients with cancer (23.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.008).ConclusionsPalliative sedation is used more often for terminal patients. There are differences in the administration of palliative sedation between patients with and without cancer.     

The Association Between Hospital End-of-Life Care Quality and the Care Received Among Patients With Heart Failure

ContextImproving end-of-life care (EOLC) quality among heart failure patients is imperative. Data are limited as to the hospital processes of care that facilitate this goal.ObjectivesTo determine associations between hospital-level EOLC quality ratings and the EOLC delivered to heart failure patients.MethodsRetrospective analysis of the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and the Bereaved Family Survey data of heart failure patients from 2013 to 2015 who died in 107 VA hospitals. We calculated hospital-level observed-to-expected casemix-adjusted ratios of family reported excellent EOLC, dividing hospitals into quintiles. Using logistic regression, we examined associations between quintiles and palliative care consultation, receipt of chaplain and bereavement services, inpatient hospice, and intensive care unit death.ResultsOf 6256 patients, mean age was 77.4 (SD = 11.1), 98.3% were male, 75.7% were white, and 18.2% were black. Median hospital scores of “excellent” EOLC ranged from 41.3% (interquartile range 37.0%–44.8%) in the lowest quintile to 76.4% (interquartile range 72.9%–80.3%) in the highest quintile. Patients who died in hospitals in the highest quintile, relative to the lowest, were slightly although not significantly more likely to receive a palliative care consultation (adjusted proportions 57.6% vs. 51.2%; P = 0.32) but were more likely to receive chaplaincy (92.6% vs. 81.2%), bereavement (86.0% vs. 72.2%), and hospice (59.7% vs. 35.9%) and were less likely to die in the intensive care unit (15.9% vs. 31.0%; P < 0.05 for all).ConclusionPatients with heart failure who die in VA hospitals with higher overall EOLC quality receive more supportive EOLC. Research is needed that integrates care processes and develops scalable best practices in EOLC across health care systems.     

Impact of Palliative Care on Quality of End-of-Life Care Among Brazilian Patients With Advanced Cancers

ContextMany patients with advanced cancer experience aggressive care during the end of life (EOL). Several studies have evaluated the benefits of palliative care (PC) on the reduction of aggressive measures; however, limited data are available about their benefit in Brazilian patients.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of PC on the reduction of aggressive measures at the EOL.MethodsLongitudinal study analyzed retrospectively medical records of patients who died of advanced cancer from 2010 to 2014. Data were obtained on PC referral and five quality-of-care indicators at the EOL; that is, emergency department visits, hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, use of systemic antineoplastic therapy within the last 30 days of life, and place of death in hospital as well as the use of a composite score for aggressiveness of care.ResultsOf the 1284 patients, 832 (65%) received some aggressive measures in EOL care. Over the years, there was a reduction in the aggressiveness of care (score = 0: 33.2% vs. 47.1%; P < 0.001). Patients not seen by PC received greater aggressive care compared with patients consulted by PC (score ≥1: 87.4% vs. 52.8%; P < 0.001). Early PC was associated with less chemotherapy (P = 0.001) and fewer emergency department visits (P = 0.004) in the last 30 days of life, when compared with late PC. However, there were no demonstrated benefits to significantly reduce the composite score at EOL care aggressiveness.ConclusionPatients with an advanced cancer consultation by PC staff received less aggressive care at the EOL when compared with patients without PC.