OBJECTIVES: Life-sustaining treatment is any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical conditions, and includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, haemodialysis and left ventricular assist devices. This study aimed to investigate the thoughts on life-sustaining treatment of Koreans and to assess the factors associated with deciding to not receive life-sustaining treatment if they develop a terminal disease.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Guro-gu centre for dementia from 1 May 2018 to 31 December 2019.
PARTICIPANTS: In total, 150 individuals participated in this study.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaire consisted of self-report items with some instructions, demographic characteristics, thoughts on life-sustaining treatment and psychosocial scales. The preferences of the participants were investigated on the assumption that they develop terminal cancer. The psychosocial scales included the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS).
RESULTS: We classified our participants into two groups: individuals who wanted to receive life-sustaining treatment (IRLT) and individuals who wanted to not receive life-sustaining treatment (INLT). There were twice as many participants in the INLT group than there were in the IRLT. In making this decision, the INLT group focused more on physical and mental distress. Additionally, 32.7% of participants responded that terminal status was an optimal time for this decision, but more participants want to decide it earlier. The GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were significantly higher in the INLT group than in the IRLT group. However, the INLT group had significantly lower MSPSS family scores.
CONCLUSION: Our findings can help assess issues regarding advance directives and life-sustaining treatment, and will be a reference for designing future studies on this issue.
Background: Observational studies investigating risk factors in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not considered the confounding effects of advanced care planning, such that a valid picture of risk for elderly, frail and multi-morbid patients is unknown. We aimed to report ceiling of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decisions and their association with demographic and clinical characteristics as well as outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods: Retrospective, observational study conducted between 5th March and 7th May 2020 of all hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Ceiling of care and CPR decisions were documented using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process. Unadjusted and multivariable regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with ceiling of care decisions and death during hospitalisation.
Results: A total of 485 patients were included, of whom 409 (84·3%) had a documented ceiling of care; level one for 208 (50·9%), level two for 75 (18·3%) and level three for 126 (30·8%). CPR decisions were documented for 451 (93·0%) of whom 336 (74·5%) were ‘not for resuscitation’. Advanced age, frailty, White-European ethnicity, a diagnosis of any co-morbidity and receipt of cardiovascular medications were associated with ceiling of care decisions. In a multivariable model only advanced age (odds 0·89, 0·86–0·93 p < 0·001), frailty (odds 0·48, 0·38–0·60, p < 0·001) and the cumulative number of co-morbidities (odds 0·72, 0·52–1·0, p = 0·048) were independently associated. Death during hospitalisation was independently associated with age, frailty and requirement for level two or three care.
Conclusion: Ceiling of care decisions were made for the majority of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, broadly in line with known predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19, but with a focus on co-morbidities suggesting ICU admission might not be a reliable end-point for observational studies where advanced care planning is routine.
BACKGROUND: Patient participation is a key foundation of advance care planning (ACP). However, a patient himself/herself may be left out from sensitive conversations such as end-of-life (EOL) care discussions. The objectives of this study were to investigate patients' participation rate in the discussion of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) / Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation (DNAR) order, and in the discussion that the patient is at his/her EOL stage (EOL disclosure), and to explore their associated factors.
METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review study. The participants were all the patients who were hospitalized and died in a university-affiliated teaching hospital (tertiary medical facility) in central Tokyo, Japan during the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The following patients were excluded: (1) cardiopulmonary arrest on arrival; (2) stillbirth; (3) under 18 years old at the time of death; and (4) refusal by their bereaved family. Presence or absence of CPR/DNAR discussion and EOL disclosure, patients' involvement in those discussions, and their associated factors were investigated.
RESULTS: CPR/DNAR discussions were observed in 336 out of the 358 patients (93.9%). However, 224 of these discussions were carried out without a patient (patient participation rate 33.3%). Male gender (odds ratio (OR) = 2.37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-4.25]), living alone (OR = 2.51 [1.34-4.71]), and 1 year or more from the date of diagnosis (OR = 1.78 [1.03-3.10]) were associated with higher patient's participation in CPR/DNAR discussions. The EOL disclosure was observed in 341 out of the 358 patients (95.3%). However, 170 of the discussions were carried out without the patient (patient participation rate 50.1%). Patients who died of cancer (OR = 2.41[1.45-4.03]) and patients without mental illness (OR=2.41 [1.11-5.25]) were more likely to participate in EOL disclosure.
CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical sample, only up to half of the patients participated in CPR/DNAR discussions and EOL disclosure. Female, living with family, a shorter period from the diagnosis, non-cancer, and mental illness presence are risk factors for lack of patients' participation in CPR/DNAR or EOL discussions. Further attempts to facilitate patients' participation, based on their preference, are warranted.
Despite the recent attention given to palliative care for patients with heart disease, data about the treatments in their actively dying phase are not sufficiently elaborated. In this study, we used the sampling dataset of a national database to compare the aggressive treatments performed in patients with cancer and those with heart disease. We only included patients deceased in January or July from 2011 to 2015, using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination sampling dataset of the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB). Patients who were discharged within the first 10 days of each month were excluded. We explored and compared aggressive treatments such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intensive care utilization, performed within seven days before death in cancer patients. We used 10,637 (0.4% of the dataset) deceased target population (40.0% female), with 7844 (73.7%) and 2793 (26.3%) being the proportion of cancer and heart disease patients, respectively. Aggressive treatments and procedures such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (18.4%), intensive care utilization (5.4%), use of inotropes (43.4%), use of respirators (29.1%), and dialysis (4.5%) were frequently observed in heart disease patients. These associations remained after adjusting for age, sex, and disease severity. This study indicates the possible use of an NDB sampling dataset to evaluate the aggressive treatments and procedures in the actively dying phase in both heart disease and cancer patients. Our results showed the differences in aggressive treatment strategies in the actively dying phase between patients with cancer and those with heart disease.
Some care home residents were wrongly subjected to decisions ruling out attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic, leading to potentially avoidable deaths, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has concluded.
Advance instructions not to attempt CPR should a patient’s heart or breathing stop in future should be discussed with patients, if they have the capacity to consent, or with their family, and made on an individual basis. But amid fears that hospitals would be overwhelmed with covid-19 patients, some care homes were given blanket DNACPR (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) notices. An Amnesty International report in October, which called for a full public inquiry, found inappropriate or unlawful use of DNACPRs by GPs, clinical commissioning groups, hospitals, and care homes.
[Début de l'article]
CONTEXT: Slow codes, which occur when clinicians symbolically appear to conduct advanced cardiac life support but do not provide full resuscitation efforts, is ethically controversial.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of slow codes in practice and their association with clinicians' attitudes and moral distress.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey at Rush University and University of Chicago in January 2020. Participants included physician trainees, attending physicians, nurses and advanced practice providers who care for critically ill patients.
RESULTS: Of the 237 respondents to the survey (31% response rate, n=237/753), almost half (48%) were internal medicine residents (46% response rate, n=114/246). Over two-thirds of all respondents (69%) reported caring for a patient where a slow code was performed, with a mean of 1.3 slow codes (SD 1.7) occurring in the past year per participant. A narrow majority of respondents (52%) reported slow codes are ethical if the code is medically futile. Other respondents (46%) reported slow codes are not ethical, with 19% believing no code should be performed and 28% believing a full guideline consistent code should be performed. Most respondents reported moral distress when being required to run (75%), do chest compressions for (80%) or witness (78%) a cardiac resuscitation attempt they believe to be medically futile.
CONCLUSION: Slow codes occur in practice, even though many clinicians ethically disagree with their use. The use of cardiac resuscitation attempts in medically futile situations can cause significant moral distress to medical professionals who agree or are forced to participate in them.
Purpose: Visitor restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic limit in-person family meetings for hospitalized patients. We aimed to evaluate the quantity of family meetings by telephone, video and in-person during the COVID-19 pandemic by manual chart review. Secondary outcomes included rate of change in patient goals of care between video and in-person meetings, the timing of family meetings, and variability in meetings by race and ethnicity.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluated patients admitted to the intensive care unit at an urban academic hospital between March and June 2020. Patients lacking decision-making capacity and receiving a referral for a video meeting were included in this study.
Results: Most patients meeting inclusion criteria (N = 61/481, 13%) had COVID-19 pneumonia (n = 57/61, 93%). A total of 650 documented family meetings occurred. Few occurred in-person (n = 70/650, 11%) or discussed goals of care (n = 233/650, 36%). For meetings discussing goals of care, changes in patient goals of care occurred more often for in-person meetings rather than by video (36% vs. 11%, p = 0.0006). The average time to the first goals of care family meeting was 11.4 days from admission. More documented telephone meetings per admission were observed for White (10.5, SD 9.5) and Black/African-American (7.1, SD 6.6) patients compared to Hispanic or Latino patients (4.9, SD 4.9) (p = 0.02).
Conclusions: During this period of strict visitor restrictions, few family meetings occurred in-person. Statistically significant fewer changes in patient goals of care occurred following video meetings compared to in-person meetings, providing support limiting in-person meetings may affect patient care.
Background: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are often involved in end-of-life circumstances, yet little is known about how EMS interfaces with advance directives to forego unwanted resuscitation (Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR)). We evaluated the frequency of these directives involved in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and how they impact care.
Methods: We conducted a cohort investigation of adult, EMS-attended OHCA from January 1 to December 31, 2018 in King County, WA. DNAR status was ascertained from dispatch, EMS, and hospital records. Resuscitation was classified according to DNAR status: not initiated, initiated but ceased due to the DNAR, or full efforts.
Results: Of 3152 EMS-attended OHCA, 314 (9.9%) had a DNAR directive. DNAR was present more often among those for whom EMS did not attempt resuscitation compared to when EMS provided some resuscitation (13.2% [212/1611] vs 6.6% [101/1541], (p < 0.05).
Of those receiving resuscitation with a DNAR directive (n = 101), the DNAR was presented on average 6 min following EMS arrival. A total of 82% (n = 83) had EMS efforts ceased as a consequence of the DNAR while 18% (n = 18) received full efforts. Full-efforts compared to ceased-efforts were more likely to have a witnessed arrest (67% vs 36%), present with shockable rhythm (22% vs 6%), achieve spontaneous circulation by time of DNAR presentation (50% vs 4%), and have family contradict the DNAR (33% vs 0%) (p < 0.05 for each comparison).
Conclusions: Approximately 10% of EMS-attended OHCA involved DNAR. EMS typically fulfilled this end-of-life preference, though wishes were challenged by delayed directive presentation or contradictory family wishes.
Ce récit documente comment des malades sont morts en FaceTime pendant l’épidémie de Covid. À partir d’une enquête de terrain que j’ai commencée en janvier 2020 dans le service de réanimation d’un hôpital de la côte Ouest des États-Unis, je raconte l’apparition de la Covid-19, la séparation des malades de leurs familles, la mort vécue sur l’écran des téléphones mobiles, ainsi que les différentes façons d’agir des soignants face à cette situation que, tous, s’accordèrent à trouver « horrible ».
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Experts have suggested that patients represented by professional guardians receive higher intensity end-of-life treatment than other patients, but there is little corresponding empirical data.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Among veterans aged 65 and older who died from 2011 to 2013, we used Minimum Data Set assessments to identify those who were nursing home residents and had moderately severe or severe dementia. We applied methods developed in prior work to determine which of these veterans had professional guardians. Decedent veterans with professional guardians were matched to decedent veterans without guardians in a 1:4 ratio, according to age, sex, race, dementia severity, and nursing facility type (VA based vs non-VA).
MEASUREMENTS: Our primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission in the last 30 days of life. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the last 30 days of life, feeding tube placement in the last 90 days of life, three or more nursing home-to-hospital transfers in the last 90 days of life, and in-hospital death.
RESULTS: ICU admission was more common among patients with professional guardians than matched controls (17.5% vs 13.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio = 1.33; 95% confidence interval = .89–1.99). There were no significant differences in receipt of any other treatment; nor was there a consistent pattern. Mechanical ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation were more common among patients with professional guardians, and feeding tube placement, three or more end-of-life hospitalizations, and in-hospital death were more common among matched controls.
CONCLUSION: Rates of high-intensity treatment were similar whether or not a nursing home resident with dementia was represented by a professional guardian. This is in part because high-intensity treatment occurred more frequently than expected among patients without guardians.
OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to provide a paradigm when it is ethical to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Hospitals around the nation are enacting systems to limit CPR in caring for COVID+ patients for a variety of legitimate reasons and based on concepts of medical futility and allocation of scarce resources. No ethical framework, however, has been proposed as a standard to guide care in this crucial matter.
METHODS: Our analysis begins with definitions of ethically relevant terms. We then cycle an illustrative clinical vignette through the mathematically permissible possibilities to account for all conceivable scenarios. Scenarios with ethical tension are examined.
RESULTS: Patients have the negative right to refuse care including CPR, but they do not have the positive right to demand it. Our detailed ethical analysis and recommendations support CPR if and only if 1) CPR is judged medically beneficial, and in line with the patient's and values and goals, 2) allocations or scarce resources follow a just and transparent triage system, and 3) providers are protected from contracting the disease.
CONCLUSIONS: CPR is an intervention like any other, with attendant risks and benefits and with responsibility for the utilization of limited resources. Our ethical analysis advocates for a systematic approach to codes that respects the important ethical considerations in caring for the critically ill and facilitates patient-centered, evidence-based, and fair treatment to all.
Aim: We validated the NUE rule, using three criteria (Non-shockable initial rhythm, Unwitnessed arrest, Eighty years or older) to predict futile resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all recorded OHCA in Marion County, Indiana, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019. We described patient, arrest, and emergency medical services (EMS) response characteristics, and assessed the performance of the NUE rule in identifying patients unlikely to survive to hospital discharge.
Results: From 2014 to 2019, EMS responded to 4370 patients who sustained OHCA. We excluded 329 (7.5%) patients with incomplete data. Median patient age was 62 years (IQR 49 - 73), 1599 (39.6%) patients were female, and 1728 (42.8%) arrests were witnessed. The NUE rule identified 290 (7.2%) arrests, of whom none survived to hospital discharge.
Conclusion: In external validation, the NUE rule (Non-shockable initial rhythm, Unwitnessed arrest, Eighty years or older) correctly identified 7.2% of OHCA patients unlikely to survive to hospital discharge. The NUE rule could be used in EMS protocols and policies to identify OHCA patients very unlikely to benefit from aggressive resuscitation.
CONTEXT: One fundamental way to honor patient autonomy is to establish and enact their wishes for end of life care. Limited research exists regarding adherence with code status.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempts discordant with documented code status at the time of death in the United States and to elucidate potential contributing factors.
METHODS: The Cerner APACHE outcomes database, which includes 237 U.S. hospitals that collect manually abstracted data from all critical care patients, was queried for adults admitted to intensive care units with a documented code status at the time of death from January 2008 to December 2016. The primary outcome was discordant cardiopulmonary resuscitation at death. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify patient-, and hospital-level associated factors after adjustment for age, hospital, and illness severity (APACHE III score).
RESULTS: A total of 21,537 patients from 56 hospitals were included. Of patients with a do-not-resuscitate code status, 149 (0.8%) received cardiopulmonary resuscitation at death and associated factors included: Black race, higher APACHE III score or treatment in small or non-teaching hospitals. Of patients with a full code status, 203 (9.0%) did not receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation at death and associated factors included: higher APACHE III score, primary neurologic or trauma diagnosis, or admission in a more recent year.
CONCLUSION: At the time of death, 1.6% of patients received or did not undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a manner discordant with their documented code statuses. Race, and institutional factors were associated with discordant resuscitation, and addressing these disparities may promote concordant end-of-life care in all patients.
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a medical emergency intervention aimed at ending a life-threatening cardiovascular arrest as quickly as possible. However, the medical ethics of starting CPR in patients who have incurable and terminal disease is a matter of controversy. This ethical dilemma affects cancer patients in particular, as they are often suffering from advanced disease in a palliative situation. Few data are as yet available concerning the prevalence of CPR in patients with terminal cancer.
METHODS: A population-based cross-sectional study was carried out on the basis of death certificates of two large cities in Germany evaluated for 2017. Medical data on resuscitation and cause of death were analyzed. Cancer patients with or without a palliative situation were identified, and the prevalence of resuscitation in these patients was determined. In addition, factors influencing resuscitation were calculated using binary multivariate regression.
RESULTS: A total of 8,496 persons died, 32.1% of whom [2,723] were cancer patients. A palliative situation was present in 80.9% of the cancer patients [2,202]. A total of 163 cancer patients and 1,006 individuals without cancer were resuscitated at the end of life, representing prevalences of 6.0% (95% CI, 5.1-6.9%) and 17.4% (95% CI, 16.4-18.4%), respectively. Cancer patients with a palliative disease status received CPR in 3.4% of cases (95% CI, 2.6-4.2%). More than half of the resuscitations were performed in hospital (57.7% of resuscitated persons and 68.7% of cancer patients). Sex, age, presence of a palliative situation, and care provided by a specialized outpatient palliative service were found to be independent influencing factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Six in 100 cancer patients, and slightly more than three in 100 cancer patients with a palliative disease status, undergo CPR at the end of their lives. Thus, the indication for resuscitation in advanced cancer patients is handled with care and responsibility in Germany.
Background: To characterize patients dying in a community hospital with or without attempting cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and to describe patient involvement in, documentation of, and compliance with decisions on resuscitation (Do-not-attempt-to-resuscitate orders; DNAR).
Methods: ll patients who died in Kalmar County Hospital during January 1, 2016 until December 31, 2016 were included. All information from the patients’ electronic chart was analysed.
Results: Of 660 patients (mean age 77.7 ± 12.1 years; range 21–101; median 79; 321 (48.6%) female), 30 (4.5%) were pronounced dead in the emergency department after out-of-hospital CPR. Of the remaining 630 patients a DNAR order had been documented in 558 patients (88.6%). Seventy had no DNAR order and 2 an explicit order to do CPR. In 43 of these 70 patients CPR was unsuccessfully attempted while the remaining 27 patients died without attempting CPR. In 2 of 558 (0.36%) patients CPR was attempted despite a DNAR order in place. In 412 patients (73.8%) the DNAR order had not been discussed with neither patient nor family/friends. Moreover, in 75 cases (13.4%) neither patient nor family/friends were even informed about the decision on code status.
Conclusions: In general, a large percentage of patients in our study had a DNAR order in place (88.6%). However, 27 patients (4.3%) died without CPR attempt or DNAR order. DNAR orders had not been discussed with the patient/surrogate in almost three fourths of the patients. Further work has to be done to elucidate the barriers to discussions of CPR decisions with the patient.
La loi Claeys–Leonetti a donné le droit à « une sédation profonde et continue provoquant une altération de la conscience maintenue jusqu’au décès (SPCMD) ». Chaque situation de sa mise en œuvre soulève des questions éthiques, morales, mais aussi pratiques, techniques et organisationnelles. Comment s’approprier la SPCMD dans le contexte particulier de la réanimation ? Comment définir les contours de cette pratique sédative à visée palliative ? Quelles sont les modalités décisionnelles et pratiques de sa mise en œuvre ? La SPCMD se distingue des autres pratiques sédatives à visée palliative : elle consiste à rendre le patient inconscient sans communication possible ; son intention dès l’initiation est d’être poursuivie jusqu’au décès, l’inconscience provoquée est quant à elle l’objectif, et non pas l’effet indésirable. La SPCMD se distingue également de l’euthanasie : si la distinction peut parfois paraître complexe et ambiguë lorsqu’elle s’accompagne en réanimation de l’arrêt d’un traitement de maintien en vie, les intentions restent radicalement différentes. Si les modalités décisionnelles sont clairement précisées dans la loi, les étapes du processus décisionnel continuent de questionner les équipes de réanimation. Et les modalités d’application pratique sont moins claires, particulièrement dans le contexte de la réanimation. Si la loi actuelle est probablement insuffisamment connue et mise en œuvre, elle permet de soigner les patients en fin de vie, tout en respectant leur dignité.
Les soins palliatifs demandent de plus en plus de compétences médicales, soignantes, humaines et éthiques, afin d’asseoir leur légitimité dans des domaines de plus en plus pointus de la médecine – réanimation, néonatalogie, cancérologie, gériatrie – ainsi que dans la diversité des prises en charge, y compris au domicile ou en EPHAD.
Dans ce contexte de développement des formations et d’élargissement des champs de compétences de la pratique palliative, cette 5e édition du manuel offre :
-les indispensables connaissances thérapeutiques ;
-les outils, à destination des professionnels en vue d’acquérir une compétence clinique pour la rencontre et l’accompagnement humain, psychique et relationnelle de la personne malade ;
-une contextualisation de la pratique des soins palliatifs dans leur dimension sociale, sanitaire et politique ;
-des jalons pédagogiques pour le développement des soins palliatifs dans leur dimension pédagogique et de recherche.
Cette réédition totalement revue et enrichie contribue à une appropriation des évolutions législatives portées par la loi du 2 février 2016 créant de nouveaux droits en faveur des malades et des personnes en fin de vie (droits de la personne, sédation profonde et continue, souffrance, directives anticipées opposables, etc.). Les conditions du mourir interrogent à la fois nos obligations sociales et les exigences du soin. Alors que s'instaurent une nouvelle culture de la fin de vie, de nouvelles solidarités, quelles seront les incidences sur les pratiques professionnelles au service de la personne malade et de ses proches ? Ces situations toujours singulières, irréductibles aux débats généraux portant sur "la mort dans la dignité" justifient une exigence de clarification, la restitution d’expériences et la transmission de savoirs vrais.
Dans une approche pluridisciplinaire, cet ouvrage associe les meilleures compétences pour proposer une synthèse rigoureuse et complète des réflexions et des expériences au cœur des débats les plus délicats de notre société. Il constitue une indispensable référence à destination des professionnels mais tout autant d'un large public, la concertation nationale sur la fin de vie ayant fait apparaître un important besoin d'informations dans ces domaines à la fois intimes et publics.
BACKGROUND: With the highest number of cases in the world as of April 13, 2020, New York City (NYC) became the epicenter of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The data regarding palliative team involvement in patients with COVID-19, however, remains scarce. We aimed to investigate outcomes of palliative team involvement for the patients with COVID-19 in NYC.
METHODS: Consecutive 225 patients with confirmed COVID-19 requiring hospitalization in our urban academic medical center in NYC were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups, those with a palliative care consult (palliative group: 14.2% [n = 32]) versus those with no palliative care consult (no palliative group: 85.8% [n = 193]).
RESULTS: The palliative group was older and had more comorbidities. During the hospital course, the palliative group had more intensive care unit stays, rapid response team activations, and more use of vasopressors (P < .05). Patients with palliative care had higher rates of invasive mechanical ventilation than those without (46.9% vs 10.4%, P < .001). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed in 12 patients (6.5% vs 5.2%, P = .77) and death rate was 100% in both subsets. Notably, initial code status was not different between the 2 groups, however, code status at discharge was significantly different between them (P < .001). The rate of full code decreased by 70% in the palliative group and by 47.5% in the no palliative care group from admission to the time of death.
CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 benefit from palliative team consults by helping to clarify advanced directives and minimize futile resuscitative efforts.