Toward treatment with respect and dignity in the intensive care unit.

How decisions are made and communication is handled are essential to ensuring a good outcome.In the case of Scardoni v Hawryluck,1 Mrs H was an 81-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer disease, cardiovascular illness, and septic shock whose family and physician could not agree on goals for care, requiring that a legal decision be made regarding the level of care to be provided. Over time and after much discussion, the multidisciplinary team on the intensive care unit (ICU) reached a consensus that intensive care for Mrs H would not improve her condition. So it was decided that after Mrs H was stepped down to a general medical unit, should an infection or respiratory distress develop, she would not be returned to the ICU. The attending ICU physician informed the family that instead of ICU care, “the hospital would offer her palliative care: painkillers and sedatives to keep her comfortable while her afflictions took their course.”2 In this particular case, the patient’s family challenged the health care team’s recommendations and insisted that their mother be readmitted to the ICU so that aggressive life-sustaining treatment would continue.This case, although Canadian, is relevant to ICU settings throughout North America. The purpose of this discussion is not to provide an in-depth ethical analysis, but rather to use the case of Mrs H to characterize one type of health care situation that clinical ethicists could help facilitate. Medical recommendations such as those involved in the care of Mrs H are made to prevent the “revolving door” patient, who according to ICU teams will receive no medical benefit if returned to the ICU. Decisions not to readmit are euphemistically referred to by some ICU staff as the “one-way ticket out of ICU” or “celestial transfer.” Such language shared between colleagues reflects a coping strategy, a “gallows humor,” intended to manage difficult feelings like sadness, anger, grief, sympathy, or moral distress. Cases like that of Mrs H are of particular concern to critical care nursing. Research has indicated that moral distress, a significant contributing factor to burnout, is encountered by ICU nurses when the care they are providing to a patient is regarded as futile.3It is not uncommon for hospital-based clinical ethicists to receive a request for consultation when disputes regarding similar recommendations for care arise between substitute decision makers and the ICU treatment team. These cases can lead to moral distress because of commonly held opinions among team members that futile treatment is being provided. Although staff can provide many life-sustaining treatments to such a patient, ethical questions often arise during the patient’s stay in the ICU. What ought to happen when an ICU team decides that a patient should be transferred to a general medical unit to receive comfort measures only, with no readmission to the ICU? Although teams discuss the practical questions about what can be done, the ethical questions about what ought to be done are sometimes not as clear. The following discussion explores how clinical ethicists can provide valuable assistance with the kinds of ethical challenges these situations customarily present. Particular emphasis will be placed on working within a process-driven, interdisciplinary framework that maintains a communication-oriented approach to ethical decision making.Clinical ethics is a relatively new field, and the role and purpose of clinical ethicists can vary somewhat according to the particular health care setting. For the purpose of this discussion, the authors describe the knowledge, skills, and activities of clinical ethicists through their review of relevant literature as well as their own training and experiences as staff clinical ethicists at 2 acute care settings in Ontario, Canada.Greater legal clarity or legislative measures to specifically address conflicts that arise over withdrawal or withholding of treatment for terminally ill patients are required, according to at least one legal expert. Current Canadian law, according to this same scholar, leaves doctors, patients and their families in a “grey zone” as to who should have ultimate authority on such decisions.4 The daily reality in most North American ICUs is that this gray zone persists—for better or worse. Although hospitals attempt to provide guidelines for addressing conflicts such as the one involving Mrs H, it is the quality of communication and relationship within the interdisciplinary team and between the treating team and the patient’s family that has a marked influence on decision making.5–7 In most cases similar to this one, consensus about level of care is first achieved by the interdisciplinary team, and a subsequent agreement is reached between the treatment team and the patient’s substitute decision maker and family. However, when agreement cannot be reached because of irreconcilable notions pertaining to what constitutes benefit to the patient and what constitutes harm, the results can be uncertain, stressful, and most unsatisfactory for both the health professionals involved and the patient’s family. This combination of an unfortunate turn of events for the patient, sharing of bad news with family members, and the recommendation for care outside of the ICU is a juncture of decision making at which conflict can occur and ethical challenges are most apparent to members of the interdisciplinary team.8,9Much has been written about the difficulties in communication within the ICU and how this affects patient care. Considerable evidence indicates that communication between the ICU team, patients, and patients’ families can be inadequate, leading to conflict and a possible long-term effect on the patient’s family.6,8,10,11 In one study,8 46% of families who had a loved one die in the ICU reported conflict over decisions to withdraw or withhold life-support measures. These family members also reported conflict over the manner in which staff communicated with or behaved toward them. The authors of that study8 cited family members who felt pressured by staff to “hasten their loved one’s death because they placed a burden on valued resources.” The importance of communication between treatment teams and patients and patients’ families cannot be overstated. In addressing the difficulties and deficiencies that have been identified, 2 experts concluded, “communication with caregivers is consistently identified as the most important and least achieved factor in patient/family satisfaction surveys.”12Intensive care is primarily intended to provide maximum benefit to those patients who are likely to recover from their infirmity or trauma.13 When the interdisciplinary team is not clearly communicating ethical considerations as well as the criteria they are using to determine the effectiveness or success of the treatment plan, patients’ families may develop erroneous expectations that life-sustaining interventions will continue to be offered.6 At the same time as a loved one is receiving ICU care with a grim prognosis, families are struggling to come to terms with impending loss. Family functioning or experience in coping with loss,14 unrealistic expectations regarding health outcome, within a societal context of diverse religious or cultural beliefs, can markedly influence families’ decision making about end-of-life care. Such formidable contributing factors further emphasize that effective communication strategies, as well as an appropriate level of sensitivity, ought to be used in ICUs when dealing with patients’ families.11Team communication, in particular communication between disciplines, also has proven problematic in decisions about end-of-life care in the ICU. Critical care nurses have cited difficulties in communication and decision making within interdisciplinary ICU teams. Ferrand et al15 reported that 75% of the nursing staff who participated believed that “collaboration was inadequate during decision making” despite general agreement that such team collaboration is necessary and desired. In another study,16 about one-third of the ICU nurses who participated felt “excluded by physicians from patient care decisions and felt their exclusion to be a detriment to patient care.”In terms of the burdens carried in making decisions about end-of-life care, some evidence suggests that physicians and nurses experience equal burdens. Physicians experience the burdens associated with having to make these decisions, and nurses feel the burden of having to carry out care decisions made by someone else.17 Given the shared burdens that members of the interdisciplinary team face, as well as the reported difficulties in end-of-life care decision making in the ICU, ensuring effective communication is a key feature of high-quality patient care.7 The following discussion is intended to demonstrate how clinical ethicists can be supportive of such strategies for effective communication and decision making.Medical recommendations like those pertaining to the care of patients such as Mrs H are based on best-practice standards of care and are informed by ethical principles like beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy. Continued life-sustaining support in situations where benefit is in question can be regarded as futile, a concept with inherent ethical challenges. As Weijer et al18 point out, the values inherent in medical futility arguments often confuse treatment considered ineffective and treatment that will be effective but will ultimately result in a controversial outcome such as permanent unconsciousness. A team’s decision to not readmit a patient for ICU care can be an attempt to address futility based on controversial outcomes that the team may perceive as causing more harm for the patient than good. Poignantly stated, “if the welfare of the patient is the whole purpose of providing treatment and if that treatment brings needless suffering, then the whole purpose of medicine is defeated.”19 Although the concept of futility in ICU care is a subject worthy of ethical debate, it will not be the focus of this discussion. Rather, the subject of this discussion is the role of clinical ethicists in helping decision makers address ethical considerations such as futility.The results of inadequate communication, misunderstandings, or disagreements arising from divergent views about what is beneficent and the institutional realities surrounding resource allocation can be seen in the moral distress and subsequent moral residue experienced by both the patient’s family members and the health care staff involved. Moral distress occurs when a person can identify the ethically appropriate course of action, but does not feel able to carry this action forward because of barriers that may include lack of resources, legal limits, institutional obstacles, or imbalances in power, for example. Effects of moral distress on an individual can include feelings of anger, frustration, anxiety, or depression.20 Moral residue can be encountered when “deeply held beliefs, values and principles” are set aside at the expense of one’s personal sense of integrity.21 For families of patients, moral residue can manifest in lifelong memories about difficult health care experiences.The experience of moral distress and moral residue are of particular importance to critical care nursing. Some evidence indicates a relationship between an ICU care nurse’s perception of providing futile care, inadequate communication about the care plan within the interdisciplinary team, and the incidence of moral distress, emotional exhaustion, and burnout.3,16,22 Cases like that of Mrs H can present these kinds of challenges to nurses providing care at the bedside. The discussion also highlights how clinical ethicists can assist interdisciplinary teams in addressing ethical challenges that can lead to moral distress.Finally, the ethical climate within our health care settings is shaped by the organizational values inherent in hospital policies, approaches to handling conflict, allocation of human and material resources, the daily-lived experience of staff providing care, and those to whom care is provided.23,24 Economic constraints, resource allocation difficulties, and staffing shortages contribute to the moral climate of health settings, the moral distress of staff, and burnout among health care providers.25,26In cases such as that of Mrs H, the ethical challenges are not just about treatment requests considered inadvisable but also about scarce resources like ventilator-equipped beds in ICU settings. In the minds of some families, the need for an ICU bed is the primary reason that palliative measures are now being recommended. When conflict surrounds decisions about level of care, it is the bedside ICU nurse who fields the questions, concerns, and emotions expressed by patients’ families.It is through such challenging decision making, in which no agreement is reached, that the moral climate is regrettably defined for all persons with a stake in the decision. However oppressive these disagreements feel to both health care professionals and patients’ family members, most often the disagreements, ironically, do not result from a lack of good intentions on either side of the debate. Rather, these circumstances reflect the complex ethical challenges that are inherent in contemporary health care settings. Clinical ethicists can be an important resource to health care teams, patients, and patients’ families in addressing these difficult challenges.Clinical ethicists who provide consultative services may be requested by the ICU team when conflicts such as the one surrounding the planning of Mrs H’s level of care arise. What are the characteristics, skills, and knowledge that make clinical ethicists a useful resource in helping to address conflict over decisions about level of care for stable but critically ill ICU patients?Clinical ethicists come from a diverse background of training: clinical and academic experiences that include but are not limited to medicine, nursing, social work, theology, philosophy, and anthropology. Most clinical ethicists have advanced academic degrees and/or training in clinical ethics. Despite this diversity in background, clinical ethicists engage in common functions: consultative services, research, education and the development of policies pertaining to patient care and organizational ethics.27–29Clinical ethicists are trained to view ethical problems within an interdisciplinary health care environment whose primary commitment should always be to provide the best patient care possible. Patient care and goals for care are best understood through the wishes, beliefs, and values of the patient and the patient’s family. The approach taken by clinical ethicists in providing consultation is to model interdisciplinary collaboration and effective communication with patients and their families, with the objective of enhancing ethical decision making.28–30In effect, clinical ethicists in cases such as the one involving Mrs H act as facilitators of communication and decision making about goals for care, while directing attention to the ethical considerations underlying such decisions. Generally, clinical ethicists can help clarify differences in the way ethical considerations such as sanctity or quality of life are valued on the basis of religious, personal, or cultural values. Some evidence suggests that ethics consultation generally has been useful in preventing or resolving conflicts, and in reducing the incidence of prolonged controversial treatment.31,32 Current trends in the training and education of clinical ethicists have emphasized skills, knowledge, and expertise better suited to provide ethics support in real time as dilemmas and conflict around decisions related to patient care unfold.28What is particularly important about the approach used by most clinical ethicists is the emphasis placed on fair and just processes for decisions of such importance and consequence in an ICU environment.In cases such as the one involving Mrs H, it is not just what decision ought to be made that is of interest to clinical ethicists, but if and why a particular decision is ethically defensible. If so, to whom is it ethically defensible? How ought discussions and conflicts be managed? These questions raise ethical concerns about justice, fairness, and a reasoned approach to decisions of such consequence. Ethical consideration must also be given to the moral climate, how people feel treated, and the concerns and opinions of key persons with a stake in the decision making, with overarching consideration given to trust in the process used to make such important decisions. Therefore clinical ethicists are as concerned with procedural fairness as they are with outcome when assisting with ethically challenging situations in health care settings.Principal aspects of procedural fairness are as follows: that the process for decision making be as transparent as possible to all involved; that concerns of key persons with a stake in the decision making be considered; that the reasons or rationale behind decisions can be understood and defended; that people responsible for decisions be held accountable; and that in the event disagreement occurs, decisions can be reviewed, taking into account the concerns of those who disagree.33 Process-driven approaches to decision making or to resolving conflict used by clinical ethicists are dependent on using frameworks to guide communication. Such frameworks for communication are not just ethically defensible; they have been shown empirically to be part of good practice standards in ICU settings.6,11,34 Lilly et al35(pS398) found that using a standardized framework for communication resulted in health care providers seeing decision making as a “process rather than as an event”—an attribute consistent with principles for ethical decision making.An example of such a framework to guide communication is described by Lautrette et al,34 who identify such attributes as timeliness, opportunities for the patient’s family to speak, use of appropriate and sensitive language, and ensuring that the setting is private and comfortable. In addition to these attributes, clinical ethicists would include discussion of the values in conflict and ethical obligations that underscore decision making.Frameworks for communication appear well supported in the literature anyway, so what makes the involvement of clinical ethicists of added benefit?Despite advances in implementing communication strategies in many settings, improvement in general is needed in managing communication, enhancing understanding, and meeting needs of ICU patients and their families.6,8,10,11 Furthermore, Sherwin36 believes that communication frameworks and hospital policies can be used coercively, to enforce a particular outcome, if those who lead these discussions or who adhere to policies are not reflecting on personal biases, institutional pressures, and ethical considerations.Clinical ethicists act as facilitators, helping to raise important ethical questions, model effective communication, and model ethical decision making by using teachable moments to heighten the awareness and understanding of the ethical considerations in each case. Within most health care settings, necessary and unavoidable imbalances in power are present between various persons who have a stake in the decision making. Clinical ethicists assist in discussing the values that underlie decisions of such importance, making these transparent to and understood by key involved parties. They model the principles of procedural fairness. Inherently challenging decisions about level of care, as in the case of Mrs H, are often met with challenging feelings and opinions, making fairness and ethical reflection more important than less to involved parties.Clinical ethicists advocate for policies and practices that reduce coercive consequences that can arise when members of the ICU treatment team, patients, or patients’ family members feel overruled or dismissed. In conducting an ethics consultation, the clinical ethicist leads discussions with the interdisciplinary team members about ethical considerations that contribute to moral distress, for example, the conflict in the way benefit and harm associated with a particular therapy or level of care are understood. In most instances, the clinical ethicist must ensure that concerns raised by members of the interdisciplinary team and concerns expressed by patients’ family members are shared and considered. This process is handled in an open and transparent manner. In creating an opportunity through the consultative process for the interdisciplinary team to address concerns, related to both areas of conflict and moral distress, clinical ethicists are also capitalizing on valuable teachable moments in which knowledge about ethics and decision making can be enhanced. As Kälvemark Sporrong et al37(p835) concluded, “Ethical competence is a key factor in preventing or reducing moral distress.”We have found that consultation on an individual case often helps treatment teams identify preventative strategies to reduce or avoid conflict and to engage in more timely discussion about ethics the next time a complex care situation arises. Such measures are necessary in creating a moral climate in which discussion about ethics in daily practice can be supported and thus reducing the effects or incidence of moral distress. The potential exists for all members of the interdisciplinary ICU team, including the most responsible physician, to be so engaged in ethical reflection and decision making on challenging cases. Clinical ethicists model skills of effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making as well as principles of procedural fairness within the consultative process that they facilitate.We are not suggesting that effective communication, procedural fairness, ethical reflection, and decision making are deficient whenever clinical ethicists are not involved in such cases. In reality, complex and ethically challenging cases occur routinely in ICU settings, most often without the involvement of clinical ethicists. What is being proposed is that clinical ethicists should be seen as a valuable resource for addressing challenging cases in the ICU. Better understanding is needed about the role of clinical ethicists and the kinds of assistance they can provide.In most cases, the ICU team and patient’s family agree on recommendations that comfort measures be provided on a medical intermediate care unit or a palliative care unit for a stable but critically ill patient. However, as in the case of Mrs H, these decisions may be met with considerable emotion from the patient’s family and with differences of opinion about benefit and the appropriate level of care. We think that clinical ethicists can be a valuable resource when challenging cases arise. By providing consultation, clinical ethicists can model effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making, while following principles of procedural fairness, all of which are key elements to upholding ethics in daily practice and are of particular importance when conflict occurs about level of care in the ICU.The following are practical considerations for critical care nurses:

Psychiatric management of Patients in intensive care units.

Statement of the problem: Critically ill patients in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) are faced with the challenge of surviving in a high-risk area and rely on healthcare professionals to ensure their safety and provide complex care. One way of measuring safety attitudes in the ICU is through self-reporting questionnaires. Aim: To examine attitudes to patient safety in ICU from the perspective of healthcare professionals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Method: A descriptive cross-sectional design was employed. The survey instrument - Safety Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ-ICU version) – comprised items regarding attitudes to patient safety, rating of communication and collaboration with colleagues, as well demographic questions. Results: Sixty per cent (n= 144) of the healthcare professionals from two hospitals in Taif in KSA responded. Six safety domains were scored and showed that all participants had a negative attitude towards patient safety in the two ICUs, with one ICU scoring lower in all domains. Mean scores across domains ranged from 47.14 to 70.36 on a 100-point scale, with lowest scores for the ‘perceptions of management’ domain. Leaders and bedside nurses shared similar attitudes across domains. There was a significant difference in attitudes between respiratory therapists (RTs) and nurses (F (2, 131) = 4.18, p= 0.017); there were no other significant differences between groups. Whilst communication was mostly scored as adequate, physicians rated communication high with each other and with nurses (t= 4.35, p= 0.000). Conclusion: The findings indicate that all domains need further attention. Differences between the two ICUs indicate that hospital safety culture may be an important issue for exploration in further studies.

“In Our Unit” highlights unique practices, innovations, research, or resourceful solutions to commonly encountered problems in critical care areas and settings where critically ill patients are cared for. If you have an idea for an upcoming “In Our Unit,” send it to Critical Care Nurse, 101 Columbia, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656; fax, (949) 362-2049; e-mail, ccn@aacn.org. The atmosphere of the units has begun to change ... from one of “why bother” to “we can do it!” Over the past year, I have become acquainted with the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses’ Standards for Establishing and Sustaining Healthy Work Environments (www.aacn.org/hwe) as our manager and staff strive to make our critical care units better places to work. I am a staff nurse and can already see the changes taking place in unit morale and staff retention. Our hospital has 2 critical care units that are separate from one another but share the same manager, educator, and clinical nurse specialist. One unit is a 15-bed intensive care unit (ICU) with medical-surgical-neurological patients. The other unit is an 18-bed adult critical care (ACC) unit—it was originally a progressive care unit but now the staff have been educated and trained to care for ICU patients. Staffing the 2 units requires a number of nurses and, consequently, we have many different personalities and skill levels providing nursing care for patients, in 2 distinct, high-stress environments. The ICU primarily deals with higher acuity patients and the ACC unit deals with more patient demands because a significant number of the ACC patients do not receive mechanical ventilation nor do they require the same level of care. Patient turnover is high, especially in the ACC unit, and the acuity is high enough on the ICU that frequently nurses on both units are not able to take lunch breaks. Adding to the complex, stressful environment is the reality that the 2 units will be merged into 1 unit within the next 5 years upon the completion of a new building at our suburban campus. In our shared governance committee, nurses, physicians, and other health care professionals can discuss problems and celebrations. The physicians, for the most part, have high regard for the nurses and vice versa. However, we needed to do more to ensure a healthy work environment for our staff. Our manager noticed that morale was low and that there was poor communication among employees and low satisfaction among the staff, particularly nurses. In order to help solve this problem, and to ease the transition to one combined unit, she suggested and helped us implement several strategies to make our work environment healthier.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: Our main objective is to assess the effectiveness of follow-up services for ICU survivors that aim to identify and address unmet health needs related to the ICU period. We aim to assess the effectiveness in relation to health-related quality of life, mortality, depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, physical function, cognitive function, ability to return to work or education and adverse events. Our secondary objectives are, in general, to examine both the various ways that follow-up services are provided and any major influencing factors. Specifically, we aim to explore: the effectiveness of service organisation (physician versus nurse led, face to face versus remote, timing of follow-up service); possible differences in services related to country (developed versus developing country); and whether participants had delirium within the ICU setting.

To develop a predictive equation to estimate the frequency of blood drawing for intensive care unit (ICU) laboratory tests and to evaluate variations in ICU blood sampling practices after adjusting for patient and institutional factors. Prospective, inception, cohort study. Forty-two ICUs in 40 hospitals, including 20 teaching and 17 nonteaching ICUs. A consecutive sample of 17,440 ICU admissions, in which 14,043 blood samples were drawn for laboratory testing on ICU days 2 to 7. None. Patient demographic, physiologic, and treatment data were obtained on ICU day 1; the type and number of blood samples for laboratory testing were recorded on ICU days 1 to 7. In the 42 ICUs, a mean of 16.2 blood samples were drawn for tests on ICU days 2 to 7, but varied between 23 samples in the teaching ICUs and 9.9 samples in nonteaching ICUs. Using only ICU day 1 patient data, we predicted the subsequent number of samples drawn on ICU day 2 (R2 = .26 across individual patients) and on ICU days 2 to 7 (R2 = .26 across individual patients). The most important determinants of the number of blood samples drawn on ICU days 2 to 7 were the ICU day 1 Acute Physiology Score and admission diagnosis. After controlling for patient variables, hospital teaching status, number of beds, and location in the East and South were significantly (p < .05) associated with increased blood sampling on ICU day 2 and on ICU days 2 to 7. More frequent use of an arterial cannula and mechanical ventilation were also associated with increased blood sampling on subsequent days. The ability to adjust for patient and institutional variables and to predict the number of blood samples drawn for laboratory tests can allow ICUs to compare their practices with those of other units. When integrated into a continuous quality improvement process, this information can be used to identify and focus on opportunities for improving blood conservation and reducing excessive diagnostic testing.

To assess the impact of delay in emergency department (ED) on outcome of critically ill patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU). Outcome was defined as hospital mortality and as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 months after intensive care assessed by the 15D measure. The 15D is a generic, 15-dimensional, standardized measure of HRQoL. We hypothesized that prolonged stay in the ED is related to worse outcome. A prospective follow-up cohort study in university hospital. All consecutive 1675 patients admitted to the MICU between July 2002 and June 2004. The 15D questionnaire was mailed to all patients alive at 6 months after admission. Of all MICU patients, 64% were admitted from ED. The mean length of stay in the ED was 6.2 h (95%CI 5.9-6.5 h). The hospital mortality rate was 24.4% (20.0% in the ED vs. 33.0% in the non-ED cohort, P < 0.001) and it was associated with higher age and degree of physiological derangement at admission. Neither the length of ED stay was associated with hospital mortality (P = 0.82) nor with HRQoL at 6 months after MICU admission (P = 0.34). Altogether, HRQoL at 6 months was significantly lower compared with the age- and sex-matched general population (P < 0.001). In a university hospital, the length of ED stay was not associated with the outcome of critically ill medical patients. However, we feel that the effect of ED treatment and delay on outcome and outcome prediction in the critically ill patients deserves further evaluation.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, patients cared for in the intensive care unit were exposed to many risk factors for developing delirium and subsequent distorted memories. Further, seeing healthcare professionals who have been dressed in personal protective equipment and face masks could have affected the patients’ memories. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore memories and how they are experienced and managed by former patients who have been treated for COVID-19 in an intensive care unit. MethodsSixteen former patients treated for COVID-19 at a large emergency hospital in Sweden were interviewed 3–8 months after discharge from the intensive care unit. The data were interpreted using thematic analysis. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was followed in the reporting of the study. FindingsParticipants’ descriptions of their memories of treatment in the intensive care unit for COVID-19 generated three themes: ‘Distorted truth’ the content in the memories which implied facing death in an unreal distorted environment. ‘Captive,’ was the experience and feelings linked to memories with a feeling of being exposed and alone, and ‘Coping with memories’ explained how participants managed the implications of the memories using a mixture of strategies. ConclusionsFor former patients who were admitted to an intensive care unit after a diagnosis of COVID-19, memories caused considerable distress, which were similar to other intensive care patientś experiences, before the pandemic. Emotion-focused and problem-focused strategies could be used to cope with these memories. Healthcare professionals wearing protective equipment gave the patient a distant feeling, but more important was to be treated with attention/care and respect. Implications for clinical practiceAwareness of the impact of distorted memories on patients who are severely ill and their needs and strategies to cope with these memories can form the basis for early interventions that promotes well-being during care and recovery. Healthcare professionals have an important task to inform patients and their family members about the existence of distorted memories, and talk about the patients’ experience of them, to facilitate their recovery.

IntroductionEmergency departments (ED) and intensive care units (ICU) are high-stress environments where healthcare professionals are continuously exposed to critical situations. This results in substantial mental health burdens, leading to increased levels of depression, anxiety, stress, and burnout. These issues negatively affect both the well-being of professionals and patient care.ObjectivesThis study aims to evaluate the prevalence and severity of depression, anxiety, stress, and burnout among ED and ICU professionals. The goal is to understand mental health issues and identify contributing factors to improve prevention and support systems.MethodsA total of 242 healthcare professionals from Bezmialem Vakif University Hospital were included: 120 ICU staff (80 females, 40 males), 66 ED personnel (42 females, 24 males), and 56 office personnel (38 females, 18 males) serving as a control group. The study employed validated instruments: the Beck Depression Inventory, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, and Maslach Burnout Inventory. Non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis H and Chi-Square) were used due to non-normal data distribution, with pairwise comparisons adjusted using Bonferroni correction. The significance level was set at p &lt; 0.05.ResultsThe results showed significant differences in age, depression scores, stress levels, and burnout indicators between the ICU, ED, and control groups. ICU and ED staff reported significantly higher depression scores compared to the control group (p &lt; 0.001). Stress levels were also significantly elevated in ICU workers compared to office personnel (p = 0.001). Burnout indicators were notably higher in ICU professionals (p = 0.011). Conversely, no significant differences were observed in anxiety scores, emotional exhaustion, and hours of sleep.Table 1:Summary of Key ResultsVariableICU Personnel (n = 120) ED Personnel (n = 66)Office Personnel (Control, n = 56) p-value Significant DifferenceBeck Depression Score (Median)10106&lt;0.001YesBeck Anxiety Score (Median)8760.064NoPerceived Stress Score (Median)25.523230.001Yes (ICU vs. Office)Maslach Depersonalisation Score (Median)23.521210.011Yes (ICU vs. Office)Maslach Personal Accomplishment Score (Median)23.522210.034Yes (ICU vs. ED)Maslach Emotional Exhaustion Score (Median)2221210.064NoWorking Hours (Median)605540&lt;0.001YesLiving with Family/Partner/Alone (%)65% / 25% / 10%60% / 30% / 10%70% / 20% / 10%0.232NoSatisfaction with Job (%)65%70%80%0.147NoConclusionsThe findings underscore the necessity for targeted interventions to reduce psychological distress among ED and ICU professionals. Implementing support systems, promoting work-life balance, and improving mental health resources can significantly alleviate the mental burden on these professionals, thereby enhancing both their well-being and patient care quality.Disclosure of InterestNone Declared

BackgroundBurnout among healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in intensive care units (ICUs) has reached alarming levels, with detrimental effects on staff well-being, patient care, and organizational functioning. The HELLO randomized controlled trial (RCT) tested a multicomponent intervention aimed at reducing burnout by promoting positive communication and teamwork. This qualitative study complemented the RCT by exploring participants’ experiences and perceptions of the intervention, identifying barriers, facilitators, and factors influencing sustainability.MethodsThis qualitative component was conducted alongside the HELLO cluster-RCT in ICUs across multiple countries. Data sources included (1) 1,155 pictures of messages placed in “HELLO” boxes and on noticeboards, and (2) 26 semi-structured interviews with 27 ICU professionals from 18 ICUs, conducted 4–5 months after the intervention. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsBox messages from 26 ICUs in 20 countries revealed recurrent themes of appreciation, recognition, kindness, teamwork, and motivation, often expressed through short, personal notes of gratitude or encouragement. Interviews identified six overarching themes: understanding of the intervention and initial reactions; facilitators and barriers to implementation; focus on messages; local adaptations; immediate positive outcomes; and long-term potential outcomes. Participants reported improved team cohesion, communication, and workplace atmosphere, with leadership engagement emerging as a key facilitator. Barriers included scepticism, workload, and pre-existing workplace tensions. Although many perceived short-term benefits, most noted that the effects diminished over time unless reinforced through continued initiatives.ConclusionsThis qualitative study provides insight into healthcare professionals’ experiences of the HELLO intervention, highlighting perceived improvements in communication and team atmosphere, as well as challenges related to engagement, workload, and sustainability. These findings can inform future adaptations and implementation strategies for similar low-cost interventions in intensive care units.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06453616 (June 18, 2024).

To gain insight into both patients' and relatives' experiences with spiritual care (SC) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Method used was qualitative interviewing. This was a thematic, topic-centered, biographical, and narrative approach, using semistructured interviews with thematic analysis. A purposive sampling method was used to select a sample of ICU patients and ICU patients' relatives. An interview guide facilitated individual, semistructured interviews. The interview data were recorded by means of note-taking and audio-recording. Verbatim transcripts were compiled for analysis and interpretation. All 12 participants-7 ICU patients and 5 family members of 5 other ICU patients-experienced ICU admission as an existential crisis. Participants would appreciate the signaling of their spiritual needs by ICU health care professionals (HCPs) at an early stage of ICU admission and subsequent SC provision by a spiritual caregiver. They regarded the spiritual caregiver as the preferred professional to address spiritual needs, navigate during their search for meaning and understanding, and provide SC training in signaling spiritual needs to ICU HCPs. Early detection of existential crisis signals with ICU patients and relatives contributes to the mapping of spiritual and religious needs. Spiritual care training of ICU HCPs in signaling spiritual needs by ICU patients and relatives is recommended. Effective SC contributes to creating room for processing emotions, spiritual well-being, and satisfaction with integrated SC as part of daily ICU care.

BackgroundWorking in the stressful environment of the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is an emotionally charged challenge that might affect the emotional stability of medical staff. The quality of care for ICU patients and their relatives might be threatened through long-term absenteeism or a brain and skill drain if the healthcare professionals leave their jobs prematurely in order to preserve their own health.PurposeThe purpose of this review is to evaluate the literature related to emotional distress among healthcare professionals in the ICU, with an emphasis on the prevalence of burnout and compassion fatigue and the available preventive strategies.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted, using Embase, Medline OvidSP, Cinahl, Web-of-science, PsychINFO, PubMed publisher, Cochrane and Google Scholar for articles published between 1992 and June, 2014. Studies reporting the prevalence of burnout, compassion fatigue, secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma in ICU healthcare professionals were included, as well as related intervention studies.ResultsForty of the 1623 identified publications, which included 14,770 respondents, met the selection criteria. Two studies reported the prevalence of compassion fatigue as 7.3% and 40%; five studies described the prevalence of secondary traumatic stress ranging from 0% to 38.5%. The reported prevalence of burnout in the ICU varied from 0% to 70.1%. A wide range of intervention strategies emerged from the recent literature search, such as different intensivist work schedules, educational programs on coping with emotional distress, improving communication skills, and relaxation methods.ConclusionsThe true prevalence of burnout, compassion fatigue, secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma in ICU healthcare professionals remains open for discussion. A thorough exploration of emotional distress in relation to communication skills, ethical rounds, and mindfulness might provide an appropriate starting point for the development of further preventive strategies.

The process of giving information to families in intensive care units: A narrative review

End-of-Life Decision Making, Organ Donation, and Critical Care Nurses

BackgroundInvasive intensive care unit (ICU) treatments for patients with advanced medical illnesses and poor prognoses may prolong suffering with minimal benefit. Unfortunately, the quality of care planning and communication between clinicians and critically ill patients and their families in these situations are highly variable, frequently leading to overutilization of invasive ICU treatments. Time-limited trials (TLTs) are agreements between the clinicians and the patients and decision makers to use certain medical therapies over defined periods of time and to evaluate whether patients improve or worsen according to predetermined clinical parameters. For patients with advanced medical illnesses receiving aggressive ICU treatments, TLTs can promote effective dialogue, develop consensus in decision making, and set rational boundaries to treatments based on patients’ goals of care.ObjectiveThe aim of this study will be to examine whether a multicomponent quality-improvement strategy that uses protocoled TLTs as the default ICU care-planning approach for critically ill patients with advanced medical illnesses will decrease duration and intensity of nonbeneficial ICU care without changing hospital mortality.MethodsThis study will be conducted in medical ICUs of three public teaching hospitals in Los Angeles County. In Aim 1, we will conduct focus groups and semistructured interviews with key stakeholders to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing TLTs among ICU patients with advanced medical illnesses. In Aim 2, we will train clinicians to use protocol-enhanced TLTs as the default communication and care-planning approach in patients with advanced medical illnesses who receive invasive ICU treatments. Eligible patients will be those who the treating ICU physicians consider to be at high risk for nonbeneficial treatments according to guidelines from the Society of Critical Care Medicine. ICU physicians will be trained to use the TLT protocol through a curriculum of didactic lectures, case discussions, and simulations utilizing actors as family members in role-playing scenarios. Family meetings will be scheduled by trained care managers. The improvement strategy will be implemented sequentially in the three participating hospitals, and outcomes will be evaluated using a before-and-after study design. Key process outcomes will include frequency, timing, and content of family meetings. The primary clinical outcome will be ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes will include hospital length of stay, days receiving life-sustaining treatments (eg, mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and renal replacement therapy), number of attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation, frequency of invasive ICU procedures, and disposition from hospitalization.ResultsThe study began in August 2017. The implementation of interventions and data collection were completed at two of the three hospitals. As of September 2019, the study was at the postintervention stage at the third hospital. We have completed focus groups with physicians at each medical center (N=29) and interviews of family members and surrogate decision makers (N=18). The study is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2020, and results are expected to be available in mid-2020.ConclusionsThe successful completion of the aims in this proposal may identify a systematic approach to improve communication and shared decision making and to reduce nonbeneficial invasive treatments for ICU patients with advanced medical illnesses.International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/16301