PurposeIn intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open... Show morePurposeIn intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations.MethodA qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families.ResultsSeventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor's line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together.ConclusionThis study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation. Show less
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains one of the most fatal and debilitating conditions in the world. Current clinical management in severe TBI patients is mainly concerned with reducing secondary... Show moreTraumatic brain injury (TBI) remains one of the most fatal and debilitating conditions in the world. Current clinical management in severe TBI patients is mainly concerned with reducing secondary insults and optimizing the balance between substrate delivery and consumption. Over the past decades, multimodality monitoring has become more widely available, and clinical management protocols have been published that recommend potential interventions to correct pathophysiological derangements. Even while evidence from randomized clinical trials is still lacking for many of the recommended interventions, these protocols and algorithms can be useful to define a clear standard of therapy where novel interventions can be added or be compared to. Over the past decade, more attention has been paid to holistic management, in which hemodynamic, respiratory, inflammatory or coagulation disturbances are detected and treated accordingly. Considerable variability with regards to the trajectories of recovery exists. Even while most of the recovery occurs in the first months after TBI, substantial changes may still occur in a later phase. Neuroprognostication is challenging in these patients, where a risk of self-fulfilling prophecies is a matter of concern. The present article provides a comprehensive and practical review of the current best practice in clinical management and long-term outcomes of moderate to severe TBI in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Show less
Purpose To describe ICU stay, selected management aspects, and outcome of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe, and to quantify variation across centers.... Show morePurpose To describe ICU stay, selected management aspects, and outcome of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe, and to quantify variation across centers. Methods This is a prospective observational multicenter study conducted across 18 countries in Europe and Israel. Admission characteristics, clinical data, and outcome were described at patient- and center levels. Between-center variation in the total ICU population was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR), with correction for case-mix and random variation between centers. Results A total of 2138 patients were admitted to the ICU, with median age of 49 years; 36% of which were mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale; GCS 13-15). Within, 72 h 636 (30%) were discharged and 128 (6%) died. Early deaths and long-stay patients (> 72 h) had more severe injuries based on the GCS and neuroimaging characteristics, compared with short-stay patients. Long-stay patients received more monitoring and were treated at higher intensity, and experienced worse 6-month outcome compared to short-stay patients. Between-center variations were prominent in the proportion of short-stay patients (MOR = 2.3, p < 0.001), use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (MOR = 2.5, p < 0.001) and aggressive treatments (MOR = 2.9, p < 0.001); and smaller in 6-month outcome (MOR = 1.2, p = 0.01). Conclusions Half of contemporary TBI patients at the ICU have mild to moderate head injury. Substantial between-center variations exist in ICU stay and treatment policies, and less so in outcome. It remains unclear whether admission of short-stay patients represents appropriate prudence or inappropriate use of clinical resources. Show less
Tuinman, P.R.; Westerloo, D. van; Slot, S.; Touw, H.R.W. 2019
PURPOSE\nTo analyze the influence of using mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after intensive care unit (ICU) admission instead of in-hospital mortality on the quality indicator standardized mortality... Show morePURPOSE\nTo analyze the influence of using mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after intensive care unit (ICU) admission instead of in-hospital mortality on the quality indicator standardized mortality ratio (SMR).\nMETHODS\nA cohort study of 77,616 patients admitted to 44 Dutch mixed ICUs between 1 January 2008 and 1 July 2011. Four Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV models were customized to predict in-hospital mortality and mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after ICU admission. Models' performance, the SMR and associated SMR rank position of the ICUs were assessed by bootstrapping.\nRESULTS\nThe customized APACHE IV models can be used for prediction of in-hospital mortality as well as for mortality 1, 3, and 6 months after ICU admission. When SMR based on mortality 1, 3 or 6 months after ICU admission was used instead of in-hospital SMR, 23, 36, and 30% of the ICUs, respectively, received a significantly different SMR. The percentages of patients discharged from ICU to another medical facility outside the hospital or to home had a significant influence on the difference in SMR rank position if mortality 1 month after ICU admission was used instead of in-hospital mortality.\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe SMR and SMR rank position of ICUs were significantly influenced by the chosen endpoint of follow-up. Case-mix-adjusted in-hospital mortality is still influenced by discharge policies, therefore SMR based on mortality at a fixed time point after ICU admission should preferably be used as a quality indicator for benchmarking purposes. Show less
