Journal of palliative medicine
-
Aim: Our aim is to characterize code status documentation for patients hospitalized with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) during the first peak of the pandemic, when prognosis, resource availability, and provider safety were uncertain. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single tertiary academic medical center. Adult patients admitted between March 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020 who tested positive for COVID-19 were included. ⋯ Of those with a change, most transitioned to less aggressive resuscitation preferences. Conclusions: Most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in our study elected to be full code. Almost half of patients with prepandemic admissions had a different code status during their COVID-19 admission, with a trend toward less aggressive resuscitation preference.
-
Background: Surrogates and physicians may differ in their priorities and perspectives when making decisions for incapacitated, critically ill patients. Objectives: To determine the extent to which surrogate and physician decisions to sustain life support are associated with their expectations for patient outcomes. Setting/Subjects: Surrogates and physicians of 100 mechanically ventilated patients at an academic, tertiary care medical center in the United States were surveyed. ⋯ In contrast, among physicians, confidence was not synonymous with optimism. Instead, the significant associations between expectations for patient survival and good quality of life with the agreement that mechanical ventilation should be continued were strengthened when physicians were confident, (R2 = 0.34, p < 0.01) and (R2 = 0.47, p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion: Surrogates and physicians have different approaches to incorporating their expectations for patient prognosis and their confidence in these expectations when they are making decisions for incapacitated critically ill patients.
-
Background: There is a pressing need for standardized measures to assess the quality of home-based serious illness care. Currently, there are no validated quality measures that are specific to home-based serious illness programs (SIPs) and the unique needs of their patients. Objective: To develop and evaluate standardized survey-based measures of serious illness care experiences for assessing and comparing quality of home-based serious illness care programs. ⋯ Together, the composites explained 45% of the variance in patients' overall care ratings. Communication, Care Coordination, and Planning for Care were the strongest predictors of overall ratings. Conclusion: Our analyses provide evidence of the feasibility, reliability, and validity of proposed survey-based measures to assess the quality of home-based serious illness care from the perspective of patients and their families.