“EOL Audit Report with case studies”
Welcome to the Grand Rounds Further Reading List.
This library guide is to help support you in your professional development.
If you have any questions, please contact the Clinical Library on 9722 8250 or email SWSLHD-BankstownLibrary@health.nsw.gov.
Cardona, M., et al. (2018). "Who Benefits from Aggressive Rapid Response System Treatments Near the End of Life? A Retrospective Cohort Study." The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 44(9): 505-513. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553725017304506
Background Many patients near the end of life are subject to rapid response system (RRS) calls. A study was conducted in a large Sydney, Australia, teaching hospital to identify a cutoff point that defines nonbeneficial treatment for older hospital patients receiving an RRS call, describe interventions administered, and measure the cost of hospitalization. Methods This was a retrospective cohort of 733 adult inpatients with data for the period three months before and after their last placed RRS call. Subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥ 80 years was conducted. Log-rank, chi-square, and t-tests were used to compare survival, and logistic regression was used to examine predictors of death. Results Overall, 65 (8.9%) patients had a preexisting not-for-resuscitation (NFR) or not-for-RRS order; none of those patients survived to three months. By contrast, patients without an NFR or not-for-RRS order had three-month survival probability of 71% (log-rank χ2 145.63; p < 0.001). Compared with survivors, RRS recipients who died were more likely to be older, to be admitted to a medical ward, and to have a larger mean number of admissions before the RRS. The average cost of hospitalization for the very old transferred to the ICU was higher than for those not requiring treatment in the ICU (US$33,990 vs. US$14,774; p = 0.045). Conclusion Identifiable risk factors clearly associated with poor clinical outcomes and death can be used as a guide to administer less aggressive treatments, including reconsideration of ICU transfers, adherence to NFR orders, and transition to end-of-life management instead of calls to the RRS team.
Dixon, J., et al. (2018). "The Effectiveness of Advance Care Planning in Improving End-of-Life Outcomes for People With Dementia and Their Carers: A Systematic Review and Critical Discussion." Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 55(1): 132-150.e131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392417303330
Context End-of-life care for people with dementia can be poor, involving emergency hospital admissions, burdensome treatments of uncertain value, and undertreatment of pain and other symptoms. Advance care planning (ACP) is identified, in England and elsewhere, as a means of improving end-of-life outcomes for people with dementia and their carers. Objective To systematically and critically review empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of ACP in improving end-of-life outcomes for people with dementia and their carers. Methods Systematic searches of academic databases (CINAHL Plus with full text, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with full text, and PubMed) were conducted to identify research studies, published between January 2000–January 2017 and involving statistical methods, in which ACP is an intervention or independent variable, and in which end-of-life outcomes for people with dementia and/or their carers are reported. Results A total of 18 relevant studies were identified. Most found ACP to be associated with some improved end-of-life outcomes. Studies were predominantly, but not exclusively, from the U.S. and care home-based. Type of ACP and outcome measures varied. Quality was assessed using National Institute of Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklists. Over half of the studies were of moderate to high quality. Three were randomized controlled trials, two of which were low quality. Conclusion There is a need for more high-quality outcome studies, particularly using randomized designs to control for confounding. These need to be underpinned by sufficient development work and process evaluation to clarify the appropriateness of outcome measures, explore implementation issues and identify “active elements.”
Gonella, S., et al. (2023). "Interventions to Promote End-of-Life Conversations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 66(3): e365-e398.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392423005055
Context Although several interventions aimed to promote end-of-life conversations are available, it is unclear whether and how these affect delivery of end-of-life conversations. Measuring the processes associated with high-quality end-of-life care may trigger improvement. Objectives To estimate the effect of interventions aimed to promote end-of-life conversations in clinical encounters with patients with advanced chronic or terminal illness or their family, on process indicators of end-of-life conversations. Methods Systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO no. CRD42021289471). Four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus) were searched up to September 30, 2021. The primary outcomes were any process indicators of end-of-life conversations. Results of pairwise meta-analyses were presented as Risk Ratio (RR) for occurrence, standardized mean difference (SMD) for quality and ratio of means (ROM) for duration. Meta-analysis was not performed when fewer than four studies were available. Results A total of 4,663 articles were scanned. Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review and 16 entered at least one meta-analysis: documented occurrence (n = 8), patient-reported occurrence (n = 4), patient-reported-quality (n = 4), duration (n = 4). There was significant variability in settings, patients’ clinical conditions, and professionals. No significant effect of interventions on documented occurrence (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.84–2.84; I2 91%), patient-reported occurrence (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80–2.91; I2 95%), patient-reported quality (SMD 0.83, 95% CI −1.06 to 2.71; I2 99%), or duration (ROM 1.20, 95% CI 0.95–1.51; I2 65%) of end-of-life conversations was found. Data on frequency were conflicting. Interventions targeting multiple stakeholders promoted earlier and more comprehensive conversations. Conclusion Heterogeneity was considerable, but findings suggest no significant effect of interventions on occurrence, patient-reported quality and duration of end-of-life conversations. Nevertheless, we found indications for interventions targeting multiple stakeholders to promote earlier and more comprehensive conversations.
Heufel, M., et al. (2022). "End of life care pathways in the Emergency Department and their effects on patient and health service outcomes: An integrative review." International Emergency Nursing 61: 101153.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X22000106
Introduction End of life (EOL) care in the Emergency Department (ED) requires focused, person-centred care to meet the needs of this vulnerable cohort of patients. Methods An integrative review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was conducted. Studies were included if they were primary research relating to patients in the ED at the EOL, and/or evaluated EOL care pathways in the ED. Databases OVID Emcare, OVID Medline, and Scopus were searched from 1966-September 2021; followed by screening and appraisal. Articles were compared and data grouped into categories. Results Eleven research articles were included generating three categories for EOL care in ED. 1) tools/criteria to identify patients who may require EOL care in ED; 2) processes for providing EOL care, and 3) implementation methods/frameworks to support the uptake of EOL care processes. Conclusion There were some commonalities in the criteria used to identify patients who may be at their EOL and the interventions implemented thereafter. There was no standardised process for screening for or treating EOL care needs in the ED. Further research is required to determine the impact that EOL care pathways have on patient and health service outcomes to inform strategies for future policy development.
Heufel, M., et al. (2023). "Development of an emergency department end of life care audit tool: A scoping review." International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances 5: 100143.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X23000279
Introduction Emergency departments frequently care for patients at the end of life and should have robust processes for reviewing delivery of care. The aim of this scoping review is to examine and collate the chart audit tools available to assess the quality of end of life care of patients who die in the emergency department, or, in the subsequent hospital admission. Methods A scoping review of the literature using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, and the methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley was conducted. Primary and secondary research, along with grey literature were searched. Both adult and paediatric populations were included. Databases Ovid Emcare, CINAHL and Medline were searched from 1961 to December 2022; followed by screening and appraisal. Articles were compared and data synthesised into categories. Results Fifty-eight articles were included generating three categories; contexts for end of life audit use, development and evaluation of audit tools, and audit characteristics / components. Four tools focused on the emergency department, however, did not comprehensively review both end of life and emergency department specific data. A draft audit tool for the emergency department was developed that consisted of the common elements to evaluate end of life care as identified in this review, emergency department-specific quality of care measures and the integration of the Criteria for Screening and Triaging to Appropriate aLternative care (CriSTAL) tool. Conclusion No audit tool to comprehensively review end of life care provided for patients at the end of life in the emergency department was found. We developed an audit tool based on best available evidence that now needs testing for validity, feasibility, and usability to evaluate end of life in the emergency department setting is required.
Kim, J. S., et al. (2020). "Role of the Rapid Response System in End-of-Life Care Decisions." American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® 37(11): 943-949.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1049909120927372
Purpose:An important role of the rapid response system (RRS) is to provide opportunities for end-of-life care (EOLC) decisions to be appropriately operationalized. We investigated whether EOLC decisions were made after the RRS-recommended EOLC decision to the primary physician.Materials and Methods:We studied whether patients made EOLC decisions consistent with the rapid response team’s (RRT) recommendations, between January 1, 2017, and February 28, 2019. The primary outcome was the EOLC decision after the RRT’s recommendation to the primary physician. The secondary outcome was the mechanism of EOLC decision-making: through institutional do-not-resuscitate forms or the Korean legal forms of Life-Sustaining Treatment Plan (LSTP).Results:Korean LSTPs were used in 26 of the 58 patients who selected EOLC, from among the 75 patients for whom the RRS made an EOLC recommendation. Approximately 7.2% of EOLC decisions for inpatients were related to the RRT’s interventions in EOLC decisions. Patients who made EOLC decisions did not receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis.Conclusion:The timely intervention of the RRS in EOLC facilitates an objective assessment of the patient’s medical conditions, the limitation of treatments that may be minimally beneficial to the patient, and the choice of a higher quality of care. The EOLC decision using the legal process defined in the relevant Korean Act has advantages, wherein patients can clarify their preference, the family can prioritize the patient’s preference for EOLC decisions, and physicians can make transparent EOLC decisions based on medical evidence and informed patient consent.
Waller, A., et al. (2017). "Improving hospital-based end of life care processes and outcomes: a systematic review of research output, quality and effectiveness." BMC Palliative Care 16(1): 34.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-017-0204-1
As in other areas of health delivery, there is a need to ensure that end-of-life care is guided by patient centred research. A systematic review was undertaken to examine the quantity and quality of data-based research aimed at improving the (a) processes and (b) outcomes associated with delivering end-of-life care in hospital settings.