Discussing expected long-term quality of life in the ICU: effect on experiences and outcomes of patients, family, and clinicians—a randomized clinical trial

IF 27.1 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Lucy L. Porter, Koen S. Simons, Johannes G. van der Hoeven, Mark van den Boogaard, Marieke Zegers
{"title":"Discussing expected long-term quality of life in the ICU: effect on experiences and outcomes of patients, family, and clinicians—a randomized clinical trial","authors":"Lucy L. Porter, Koen S. Simons, Johannes G. van der Hoeven, Mark van den Boogaard, Marieke Zegers","doi":"10.1007/s00134-025-07812-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>To evaluate the effect of discussing personalized predictions of long-term quality of life (QoL) on patient and family experiences and outcomes, and on experiences of ICU clinicians.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We conducted a randomized clinical trial in two Dutch hospitals, assigning adult ICU patients to receive usual care or the intervention: discussing the expected long-term QoL based on a validated prediction model, during a family meeting in the ICU. Primary outcome was patient and family experience with shared decision-making (CollaboRATE, range 0–100), evaluated &lt; 3 days after the family meeting. Secondary outcomes included ICU professionals’ experiences (Collaboration and Satisfaction about Care Decisions [CSACD] and Ethical Decision-Making Climate Questionnaire [EDMCQ]), symptoms of anxiety and depression among patients and family, and patients’ QoL 3 months and 1 year post-ICU.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>160 patients were included, of whom 81 were randomized to receive the intervention and 79 to receive usual care. No significant differences were seen in patients’ and family members’ experiences (median CollaboRATE score 89 [IQR 85–100] in the intervention arm vs 93 [IQR 85–100] in the usual care arm, <i>p</i> = 0.6). The outcomes of patients did not differ, whereas at 1 year post-ICU family members in the usual care group reported a larger increase in depression symptoms (mean 2.3 [SD 4.2] vs 0.2 [SD 3.9], <i>p</i> = 0.04). Regarding ICU professionals’ experiences, an improvement in CSACD score was observed post-intervention (median 40 [IQR 34–45] vs 37 [IQR 32–43], <i>p</i> = 0.01), while no significant change in EDMCQ was found.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Incorporating personalized predictions of long-term QoL in family meetings had no measurable effect on patients’ and family members’ experiences. However, a positive effect on family members’ symptoms of depression and ICU professionals’ experienced collaboration was observed.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Trial registration</h3><p>This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05155150.</p>","PeriodicalId":13665,"journal":{"name":"Intensive Care Medicine","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":27.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-025-07812-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of discussing personalized predictions of long-term quality of life (QoL) on patient and family experiences and outcomes, and on experiences of ICU clinicians.

Methods

We conducted a randomized clinical trial in two Dutch hospitals, assigning adult ICU patients to receive usual care or the intervention: discussing the expected long-term QoL based on a validated prediction model, during a family meeting in the ICU. Primary outcome was patient and family experience with shared decision-making (CollaboRATE, range 0–100), evaluated < 3 days after the family meeting. Secondary outcomes included ICU professionals’ experiences (Collaboration and Satisfaction about Care Decisions [CSACD] and Ethical Decision-Making Climate Questionnaire [EDMCQ]), symptoms of anxiety and depression among patients and family, and patients’ QoL 3 months and 1 year post-ICU.

Results

160 patients were included, of whom 81 were randomized to receive the intervention and 79 to receive usual care. No significant differences were seen in patients’ and family members’ experiences (median CollaboRATE score 89 [IQR 85–100] in the intervention arm vs 93 [IQR 85–100] in the usual care arm, p = 0.6). The outcomes of patients did not differ, whereas at 1 year post-ICU family members in the usual care group reported a larger increase in depression symptoms (mean 2.3 [SD 4.2] vs 0.2 [SD 3.9], p = 0.04). Regarding ICU professionals’ experiences, an improvement in CSACD score was observed post-intervention (median 40 [IQR 34–45] vs 37 [IQR 32–43], p = 0.01), while no significant change in EDMCQ was found.

Conclusion

Incorporating personalized predictions of long-term QoL in family meetings had no measurable effect on patients’ and family members’ experiences. However, a positive effect on family members’ symptoms of depression and ICU professionals’ experienced collaboration was observed.

Trial registration

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05155150.

目的评估讨论长期生活质量(QoL)的个性化预测对患者和家属的体验和结果以及对重症监护室临床医生的体验的影响。方法我们在两家荷兰医院进行了一项随机临床试验,将重症监护室的成年患者分配到接受常规护理或干预措施:在重症监护室的家属会议上讨论基于有效预测模型的预期长期 QoL。主要结果是患者和家属对共同决策的体验(CollaboRATE,范围 0-100),在家庭会议后 3 天进行评估。次要结果包括重症监护室专业人员的体验(护理决策协作与满意度问卷[CSACD]和伦理决策氛围问卷[EDMCQ])、患者和家属的焦虑和抑郁症状以及患者重症监护室术后 3 个月和 1 年的 QoL。患者和家属的体验无明显差异(干预组 CollaboRATE 评分中位数为 89 [IQR 85-100] ,常规护理组为 93 [IQR 85-100],P = 0.6)。患者的结果没有差异,而在重症监护室术后一年,常规护理组的家属报告抑郁症状增加较多(平均 2.3 [SD 4.2] vs 0.2 [SD 3.9],p = 0.04)。关于重症监护室专业人员的体验,干预后观察到 CSACD 得分有所提高(中位数 40 [IQR 34-45] vs 37 [IQR 32-43],p = 0.01),而 EDMCQ 没有显著变化。试验注册本研究已在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册:NCT05155150。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Intensive Care Medicine
Intensive Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
51.50
自引率
2.80%
发文量
326
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Intensive Care Medicine is the premier publication platform fostering the communication and exchange of cutting-edge research and ideas within the field of intensive care medicine on a comprehensive scale. Catering to professionals involved in intensive medical care, including intensivists, medical specialists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, ICM stands as the official journal of The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. ICM is dedicated to advancing the understanding and practice of intensive care medicine among professionals in Europe and beyond. The journal provides a robust platform for disseminating current research findings and innovative ideas in intensive care medicine. Content published in Intensive Care Medicine encompasses a wide range, including review articles, original research papers, letters, reviews, debates, and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信