Christopher E Cox, Deepshikha C Ashana, Katelyn Dempsey, Maren K Olsen, Alice Parish, David Casarett, Kimberly S Johnson, Krista L Haines, Colleen Naglee, Jason N Katz, Mashael Al-Hegelan, Isaretta L Riley, Sharron L Docherty
{"title":"Mobile App-Facilitated Collaborative Palliative Care Intervention for Critically Ill Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Christopher E Cox, Deepshikha C Ashana, Katelyn Dempsey, Maren K Olsen, Alice Parish, David Casarett, Kimberly S Johnson, Krista L Haines, Colleen Naglee, Jason N Katz, Mashael Al-Hegelan, Isaretta L Riley, Sharron L Docherty","doi":"10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.6838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Few person-centered, scalable models of collaborative intensive care unit (ICU) clinician-palliative care specialist care exist.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effect of a collaborative palliative care intervention compared to usual care among family members of patients in the ICU.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This parallel-group randomized clinical trial with patient-level randomization was conducted between April 2021 and September 2023. The study was set at 6 medical and surgical ICUs in 1 academic hospital and 1 community hospital. The study participants included critically ill older adult patients with 1 of 11 poor outcome phenotypes, their family members with elevated palliative care needs, and their attending ICU physicians.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>An automated electronic health record-integrated, mobile application-based communication platform that displayed family-reported needs over 7 days, coached ICU attending physicians on addressing needs, and prompted palliative care consultation if needs were not reduced within 3 study days.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was change in the family-reported Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST) score between study days 1 and 3. The 13-item NEST score is a number between 0 and 130, with higher scores indicating a greater need. Secondary outcomes included quality of communication and goal of care concordance, as well as 3-month psychological distress.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 151 family members, the mean (SD) age was 57.4 (12.9) years, and 110 (72.9%) were female. Of 151 patients, the mean (SD) age was 69.8 (9.7) years, and 86 (57.0%) were male. Thirty-five ICU physicians were male (68.6%). Seventy-six patients were randomized to the intervention group and 75 to the control group. Treatment group differences in estimated mean NEST scores were similar at 3 days between the intervention and control groups (-3.1 vs -2.0, respectively; estimated mean difference in differences, -1.3 points [95% CI, -6.0 to 3.5]) and 7 days (-2.3 vs -2.2, respectively; estimated mean difference in differences, 0 points [95% CI, -6.2 to 6.2]). Median (IQR) need scores were lower among individuals who remained in the ICU at day 3 for intervention participants vs controls (24.5 [16.5-34.5] vs 27.5 [13.0-40.0], respectively); median (IQR) need scores were also lower among those who remained in the ICU at day 7 for intervention vs controls (22.0 [11.0-35.0] vs 28.0 [14.0-35.0], respectively). Goal concordance, quality of communication, and psychological distress symptoms did not differ. Twenty-nine intervention participants (38.2%) had palliative care consultations, compared to only 3 (4.0%) among controls, (P < .001); 66 intervention participants (87.0%) had a family meeting, compared to 48 (64.0%) among controls (P = .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this randomized clinical trial, a collaborative, person-centered, ICU-based palliative care intervention had no effect on palliative care needs or psychological distress compared to usual care despite a higher frequency of palliative care consultations and family meetings among intervention participants.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04414787.</p>","PeriodicalId":14714,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"173-183"},"PeriodicalIF":23.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11791708/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.6838","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Importance: Few person-centered, scalable models of collaborative intensive care unit (ICU) clinician-palliative care specialist care exist.
Objective: To evaluate the effect of a collaborative palliative care intervention compared to usual care among family members of patients in the ICU.
Design, setting, and participants: This parallel-group randomized clinical trial with patient-level randomization was conducted between April 2021 and September 2023. The study was set at 6 medical and surgical ICUs in 1 academic hospital and 1 community hospital. The study participants included critically ill older adult patients with 1 of 11 poor outcome phenotypes, their family members with elevated palliative care needs, and their attending ICU physicians.
Intervention: An automated electronic health record-integrated, mobile application-based communication platform that displayed family-reported needs over 7 days, coached ICU attending physicians on addressing needs, and prompted palliative care consultation if needs were not reduced within 3 study days.
Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was change in the family-reported Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST) score between study days 1 and 3. The 13-item NEST score is a number between 0 and 130, with higher scores indicating a greater need. Secondary outcomes included quality of communication and goal of care concordance, as well as 3-month psychological distress.
Results: Of 151 family members, the mean (SD) age was 57.4 (12.9) years, and 110 (72.9%) were female. Of 151 patients, the mean (SD) age was 69.8 (9.7) years, and 86 (57.0%) were male. Thirty-five ICU physicians were male (68.6%). Seventy-six patients were randomized to the intervention group and 75 to the control group. Treatment group differences in estimated mean NEST scores were similar at 3 days between the intervention and control groups (-3.1 vs -2.0, respectively; estimated mean difference in differences, -1.3 points [95% CI, -6.0 to 3.5]) and 7 days (-2.3 vs -2.2, respectively; estimated mean difference in differences, 0 points [95% CI, -6.2 to 6.2]). Median (IQR) need scores were lower among individuals who remained in the ICU at day 3 for intervention participants vs controls (24.5 [16.5-34.5] vs 27.5 [13.0-40.0], respectively); median (IQR) need scores were also lower among those who remained in the ICU at day 7 for intervention vs controls (22.0 [11.0-35.0] vs 28.0 [14.0-35.0], respectively). Goal concordance, quality of communication, and psychological distress symptoms did not differ. Twenty-nine intervention participants (38.2%) had palliative care consultations, compared to only 3 (4.0%) among controls, (P < .001); 66 intervention participants (87.0%) had a family meeting, compared to 48 (64.0%) among controls (P = .001).
Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a collaborative, person-centered, ICU-based palliative care intervention had no effect on palliative care needs or psychological distress compared to usual care despite a higher frequency of palliative care consultations and family meetings among intervention participants.
重要性:很少有以人为中心的、可扩展的重症监护病房(ICU)临床-姑息治疗专科合作模式存在。目的:评价ICU患者家属合作姑息治疗干预与常规护理的效果。设计、环境和参与者:该平行组随机临床试验采用患者水平随机化,于2021年4月至2023年9月进行。研究对象为1所专科医院和1所社区医院的6个内科和外科icu。研究参与者包括11种预后不良表型中1种的危重老年患者,其姑息治疗需求升高的家庭成员,以及他们的ICU主治医生。干预措施:一个自动化的电子健康记录集成,基于移动应用程序的通信平台,显示家庭报告的需求超过7天,指导ICU主治医生解决需求,如果需求在3个研究天内没有减少,则提示姑息治疗咨询。主要结局和测量:主要结局是在研究第1天至第3天期间,家庭报告的临终筛查工具(NEST)评分需求的变化。NEST的13项得分在0到130之间,得分越高表明需求越大。次要结局包括沟通质量和护理目标的一致性,以及3个月的心理困扰。结果:151例家庭成员中,平均(SD)年龄为57.4(12.9)岁,女性110例(72.9%)。151例患者平均(SD)年龄为69.8(9.7)岁,男性86例(57.0%)。男性35名(68.6%)。76名患者随机分为干预组,75名患者分为对照组。干预组和对照组在3天的估计平均NEST评分上的差异相似(分别为-3.1 vs -2.0;估计平均差异,-1.3点[95% CI, -6.0至3.5])和7天(-2.3 vs -2.2);估计平均差异,0点[95% CI, -6.2至6.2])。与对照组相比,干预组在第3天仍留在ICU的个体中位数(IQR)需求评分较低(分别为24.5[16.5-34.5]和27.5 [13.0-40.0]);干预第7天仍留在ICU的患者的中位需求评分(IQR)也低于对照组(分别为22.0[11.0-35.0]和28.0[14.0-35.0])。目标一致性、沟通质量和心理困扰症状没有差异。29名干预参与者(38.2%)进行了姑息治疗咨询,而对照组只有3名(4.0%)进行了姑息治疗咨询。(P结论和相关性:在这项随机临床试验中,尽管干预参与者进行姑息治疗咨询和家庭会议的频率更高,但协作式、以人为中心、以重症监护病房为基础的姑息治疗干预与常规治疗相比,对姑息治疗需求或心理困扰没有影响。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT04414787。
期刊介绍:
JAMA Internal Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed journal committed to advancing the field of internal medicine worldwide. With a focus on four core priorities—clinical relevance, clinical practice change, credibility, and effective communication—the journal aims to provide indispensable and trustworthy peer-reviewed evidence.
Catering to academics, clinicians, educators, researchers, and trainees across the entire spectrum of internal medicine, including general internal medicine and subspecialties, JAMA Internal Medicine publishes innovative and clinically relevant research. The journal strives to deliver stimulating articles that educate and inform readers with the latest research findings, driving positive change in healthcare systems and patient care delivery.
As a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed medical publications, JAMA Internal Medicine plays a pivotal role in shaping the discourse and advancing patient care in internal medicine.