Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 30;14(1):e0211531. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211531. eCollection 2019.
The majority of ICU patients lack decision-making capacity at some point during their ICU stay. However the extent to which proxy decision-makers are engaged in decisions about their patient's care is challenging to quantify.
To assess 1)whether proxies know their patient's actual code status as recorded in the electronic medical record (EMR), and 2)whether code status orders reflect ICU patient preferences as reported by proxy decision-makers.
We enrolled proxy decision-makers for 96 days starting January 4, 2016. Proxies were asked about the patient's goals of care, preferred code status, and actual code status. Responses were compared to code status orders in the EMR at the time of interview. Characteristics of patients and proxies who correctly vs incorrectly identified actual code status were compared, as were characteristics of proxies who reported a preferred code status that did vs did not match actual code status.
Among 111 proxies, 42 (38%) were incorrect or unsure about the patient's actual code status and those who were correct vs. incorrect or unsure were similar in age, race, and years of education (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Twenty-nine percent reported a preferred code status that did not match the patient's code status in the EMR. Matching preferred and actual code status was not associated with a patient's age, gender, income, admission diagnosis, or subsequent in-hospital mortality or with proxy age, gender, race, education level, or relation to the patient (P>0.20 for all comparisons).
More than 1 in 3 proxies is incorrect or unsure about their patient's actual code status and more than 1 in 4 proxies reported that a preferred code status that did not match orders in the EMR. Proxy age, race, gender and education level were not associated with correctly identifying code status or code status concordance.
大多数 ICU 患者在入住 ICU 的某个时候缺乏决策能力。然而,代理决策者在多大程度上参与了他们患者的护理决策是难以量化的。
评估 1)代理决策者是否了解其患者在电子病历(EMR)中记录的实际编码状态,以及 2)编码状态指令是否反映了代理决策者报告的 ICU 患者的偏好。
我们从 2016 年 1 月 4 日开始招募了 96 天的代理决策者。要求代理决策者了解患者的治疗目标、首选编码状态和实际编码状态。将答复与访谈时 EMR 中的编码状态订单进行比较。比较了正确识别和不正确识别实际编码状态的患者和代理决策者的特征,以及报告的首选编码状态与实际编码状态不匹配的代理决策者的特征。
在 111 名代理决策者中,有 42 名(38%)对患者的实际编码状态不正确或不确定,正确识别和不正确或不确定的患者在年龄、种族和受教育年限方面相似(所有比较的 P 值均>0.20)。29%的人报告了与 EMR 中患者编码状态不匹配的首选编码状态。首选和实际编码状态的匹配与患者的年龄、性别、收入、入院诊断或随后的院内死亡率无关,也与代理决策者的年龄、性别、种族、教育水平或与患者的关系无关(所有比较的 P 值均>0.20)。
超过 1/3 的代理决策者对其患者的实际编码状态不正确或不确定,超过 1/4 的代理决策者报告称,首选编码状态与 EMR 中的指令不匹配。代理决策者的年龄、种族、性别和教育水平与正确识别编码状态或编码状态一致性无关。