Consensus guidelines on analgesia and sedation in dying intensive care unit patients

BACKGROUND: Intensivists must provide enough analgesia and sedation to ensure dying patients receive good palliative care. However, if it is perceived that too much is given, they risk prosecution for committing euthanasia. The goal of this study is to develop consensus guidelines on analgesia and sedation in dying intensive care unit patients that help distinguish palliative care from euthanasia. METHODS: Using the Delphi technique, panelists rated levels of agreement with statements describing how analgesics and sedatives should be given to dying ICU patients and how palliative care should be distinguished from euthanasia. Participants were drawn from 3 panels: 1) Canadian Academic Adult Intensive Care Fellowship program directors and Intensive Care division chiefs (N = 9); 2) Deputy chief provincial coroners (N = 5); 3) Validation panel of Intensivists attending the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group meeting (N = 12). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus was achieved on 16 statements encompassing the role of palliative care in the intensive care unit, the management of pain and suffering, current areas of controversy, and ways of improving palliative care in the ICU. CONCLUSION: Consensus guidelines were developed to guide the administration of analgesics and sedatives to dying ICU patients and to help distinguish palliative care from euthanasia

Experience of primary care services among early adolescents in England and association with health outcomes

This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of the following article: Arrash A. Yassaee, Dougal S. Hargreaves, Kayleigh Chester, Stephanie Lamb, Ann Hagell, and Fiona Brooks, Experience of Primary Care Services Among Early Adolescents in England and Associated with Health Outcomes, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 60 (4): 388-394, first published 1 December 2016. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ The version of record is available online at doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.09.22 © 2016 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate adolescents' (11–15 years) experience of their general practitioner (GP), whether poor reported GP experience was associated with worse physical and mental health measures and whether poor previous GP experience was linked to lower utilization of these services. Methods We used logistic regression to analyze data from the 2014 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study. Four aspects of recent care experience were studied: feeling at ease, feeling treated with respect, satisfaction with doctor's explanation, and feeling able to discuss personal matters. Five dichotomized measures of health status were used: ever self-harmed; fair or poor self-reported health; frequent (at least weekly) low mood; sleeping problems; or headaches. Results Of 5,335 students, 4,149 reported having visiting their GP within the past year. Of these, 91.8% felt treated with respect, 78.7% felt at ease, 85.7% were satisfied with explanation, and 53.9% felt able to discuss personal matters. After adjusting for ethnicity, age, gender, and family affluence score, poor experience on any indicator was strongly associated with increased risk of self-harm (adjusted odds ratio range, 2.01–2.70; all p < .001); feeling low (AOR range, 1.53–2.11; all p < .001); and sleeping problems (AOR range, 1.49–1.91; all p ≤ .001). Poor experience on all indicators, except discussing personal matters, was associated with worse self-reported health. Conclusions Nearly half of this large, national study of adolescents did not feel able to discuss personal matters with their doctor. There was a consistent, strong association between reported lack of good GP experience and poor health measures.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

Mortality in very long-stay pediatric intensive care unit patients and incidence of withdrawal of treatment

Background: The mortality for children with prolonged stay in pediatric intensive care units (PICU) is much higher than overall mortality. The incidence of withdrawal or limitation of therapy in this group is unknown. Purpose: To assess mortality and characteristics of children admitted for ≥28 days to our ICU, and to describe the extent to which limitations of care were involved in the terminal phase preceding death. Methods: For the period 2003 to 2005 clinical data were collected retrospectively for children with prolonged stay (defined as ≥28 days) in a medical/surgical PICU of a university children's hospital. Results: In the PICU, 4.4% of the children (116/2,607, equal gender, mean age 29 days) had a prolonged stay. Median (range) stay was 56 (28-546) days. These children accounted for 3% of total admissions and occupied 63% of total admission days. Mortality during admission for this group was fiv

Recommendations for Enhancing Psychosocial Support of NICU Parents through Staff Education and Support

Providing psychosocial support to parents whose infants are hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) can improve parents’ functioning as well as their relationships with their babies. Yet, few NICUs offer staff education that teaches optimal methods of communication with parents in distress. Limited staff education in how to best provide psychosocial support to families is one factor that may render those who work in the NICU at risk for burnout, compassion fatigue and secondary traumatic stress syndrome. Staff who develop burnout may have further reduced ability to provide effective support to parents and babies. Recommendations for providing NICU staff with education and support are discussed. The goal is to deliver care that exemplifies the belief that providing psychosocial care and support to the family is equal in importance to providing medical care and developmental support to the baby

Measuring empathy in pediatrics: validation of the Visual CARE measure

Background: Empathy is a key element of “Patient and Family Centered Care”, a clinical approach recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, there is a lack of validated tools to evaluate paediatrician empathy. This study aimed to validate the Visual CARE Measure, a patient rated questionnaire measuring physician empathy, in the setting of a Pediatric Emergency Department (ED). Methods: The empathy of physicians working in the Pediatric ED of the University Hospital of Udine, Italy, was assessed using an Italian translation of the Visual Care Measure. This test has three versions suited to different age groups: the 5Q questionnaire was administered to children aged 7–11, the 10Q version to those older than 11, and the 10Q–Parent questionnaire to parents of children younger than 7. The internal reliability, homogeneity and construct validity of the 5Q and 10Q/10Q–Parent versions of the Visual Care Measure, were separately assessed. The influence of family background on the rating of physician empathy and satisfaction with the clinical encounter was also evaluated. Results: Seven physicians and 416 children and their parents were included in the study. Internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95 for the 10Q/10Q–Parent versions and 0.88 for the 5Q version. The item-total correlation was &gt; 0.75 for each item. An exploratory factor analysis showed that all the items load onto the first factor. Physicians’ empathy scores correlated with patients’ satisfaction for both the 10Q and 10Q–Parent questionnaires (Spearman’s rho = 0.7189; p &lt; 0.001) and for the 5Q questionnaire (Spearman’s rho = 0.5968; p &lt; 0,001). Trust in the consulting physician was lower among immigrant parents (OR 0.43. 95% CI 0.20–0.93). Conclusions: The Visual Care Measure is a reliable second-person test of physician empathy in the setting of a Pediatric Emergency Room. More studies are needed to evaluate the reliability of this instrument in other pediatric settings distinct from the Emergency Room and to further evaluate its utility in measuring the impact of communication and empathy training programmes for healthcare professionals working in pediatrics