Author
Listed:
- Jean-Pierre Quenot
- Audrey Large
- Nicolas Meunier-Beillard
- Paul-Simon Pugliesi
- Pamina Rollet
- Amaury Toitot
- Pascal Andreu
- Hervé Devilliers
- Antoine Marchalot
- Fiona Ecarnot
- Auguste Dargent
- Jean-Philippe Rigaud
- on behalf of the INSTINCT study group
Abstract
Purpose: We sought to describe the characteristics that lead physicians to perceive a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) as being non-beneficial for the patient. Materials and methods: In the first step, we used a multidisciplinary focus group to define the characteristics that lead physicians to consider a stay in the ICU as non-beneficial for the patient. In the second step, we assessed the proportion of admissions that would be perceived by the ICU physicians as non-beneficial for the patient according to our focus group’s definition, in a large population of ICU admissions in 4 French ICUs over a period of 4 months. Results: Among 1075 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the study period, 155 stays were considered non-beneficial for the patient, yielding a frequency of 14.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.9, 19.9]. Average age of these patients was 72 ±12.8 years. Mortality was 43.2% in-ICU [95%CI 35.4, 51.0], 55% [95%CI 47.2, 62.8] in-hospital. The criteria retained by the focus group to define a non-beneficial ICU stay were: patient refusal of ICU care (23.2% [95%CI 16.5, 29.8]), and referring physician’s desire not to have the patient admitted (11.6% [95%CI 6.6, 16.6]). The characteristics that led physicians to perceive the stay as non-beneficial were: patient’s age (36.8% [95%CI 29.2, 44.4]), unlikelihood of recovering autonomy (61.9% [95%CI 54.3, 69.6]), prior poor quality of life (60% [95%CI 52.3, 67.7]), terminal status of chronic disease (56.1% [95%CI 48.3, 63.9]), and all therapeutic options have been exhausted (35.5% [95%CI 27.9, 43.0]). Factors that explained admission to the ICU of patients whose stay was subsequently judged to be non-beneficial included: lack of knowledge of patient’s wishes (52% [95%CI 44.1, 59.9]); decisional incapacity (sedation) (69.7% [95%CI 62.5, 76.9]); inability to contact family (34% [95%CI 26.5, 41.5]); pressure to admit (from family or other physicians) (50.3% [95%CI 42.4, 58.2]). Conclusions: Non-beneficial ICU stays are frequent. ICU admissions need to be anticipated, so that patients who would yield greater benefit from other care pathways can be correctly oriented in a timely manner.
Suggested Citation
Jean-Pierre Quenot & Audrey Large & Nicolas Meunier-Beillard & Paul-Simon Pugliesi & Pamina Rollet & Amaury Toitot & Pascal Andreu & Hervé Devilliers & Antoine Marchalot & Fiona Ecarnot & Auguste Darg, 2019.
"What are the characteristics that lead physicians to perceive an ICU stay as non-beneficial for the patient?,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-11, September.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0222039
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222039
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0222039. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.