http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2351-682X
Figures
Abstract
Purpose
We investigated, using a multicentre survey of practices in France, the practices of ICU physicians concerning the decision not to readmit to the ICU, in light of current legislation.
Materials and methods
Multicentre survey of practices among French ICU physicians via electronic questionnaire in January 2016. Questions related to respondents’ practices regarding re-admission of patients to the ICU and how these decisions were made. Criteria were evaluated by the health care professionals as regards importance for non-readmission.
Results
In total, 167 physicians agreed to participate, of whom 165 (99%) actually returned a completed questionnaire from 58 ICUs. Forty-five percent were aged <35 years, 74% were full-time physicians. The findings show that decisions for non-readmission are taken at the end of the patient’s stay (87%), using a collegial decision-making procedure (89% of cases); 93% reported that this decision was noted in the patient’s medical file. While 73% indicated that the family/relatives were informed of non-readmission decisions, only 29% reported informing the patient, and 91% considered that non-readmission decisions are an integral part of the French legislative framework.
Conclusion
This study shows that decisions not to re-admit a patient to the ICU need to be formally materialized, and anticipated by involving the patient and family in the discussions, as well as the other healthcare providers that usually care for the patient. The optimal time to undertake these conversations is likely best decided on a case-by-case basis according to each patient’s individual characteristics.
Citation: Rigaud J-P, Giabicani M, Meunier-Beillard N, Ecarnot F, Beuzelin M, Marchalot A, et al. (2018) Non-readmission decisions in the intensive care unit under French rules: A nationwide survey of practices. PLoS ONE 13(10): e0205689. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205689
Editor: Chiara Lazzeri, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, ITALY
Received: May 24, 2018; Accepted: September 28, 2018; Published: October 18, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Rigaud et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Decisions to limit or withdraw treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) usually concern patients in whom every possible curative therapeutic option has been attempted, and/or in whom pursuing treatment would be unreasonable in view of their current clinical state and likely outcome [1–3]. In France, as in numerous other countries [3], decisions to limit or withdraw treatment are made within a strict legislative framework that involves a collegial decision-making procedure [4]. The collegial procedure must take into account the patients’ wishes, if they are known or have been recorded. When the patient’s wishes are not documented, the opinion of the family and/or surrogate must be sought. In addition, the opinion of the caregiving team, the patient’s referring physicians (if any), and any advance directives formulated by the patient must also be taken into consideration in what is truly a collective and multidisciplinary approach [5]. Once a decision has been reached, life-sustaining therapies are limited or withdrawn in conditions that have previously been evaluated [6, 7], and the patient can be oriented towards palliative care [4, 5].
However, due to the severity of disease, a complex medical history, numerous comorbidities, a future level of autonomy that is anticipated to be poor, or because of unfavourable outcome in the ICU, for some patients discharged from the ICU, a decision is made not to re-admit to intensive care if the question should arise again in the future. The main concern of the physicians in such cases is to re-orient the patient’s healthcare project in order to avoid “unreasonable therapeutic obstinacy”, but they must also be fully certain that they are not depriving the patient of access to care resources that could keep him/her alive, and which it is our moral duty to dispense. This decision should not be the sole responsibility of the ICU physician, but should also involve the physicians that know the patient best (e.g. general practitioner (GP), specialists…) in the framework of discussions between professionals [8, 9]. While the ICU physician is likely the physician that best knows the potential benefits and adverse effects of intensive care techniques, he/she is rarely the one who knows the patient best, especially in the context of chronic disease [10–12].
Currently, decisions “not to re-admit” are generally not made through a collegial procedure, even though such a decision could legitimately be considered as a limitation on access to therapeutic resources. Data in the literature are sparse on this topic and mostly stem from studies evaluating the prognostic impact of the timing of discharge from the ICU [13, 14] or the determinants of mortality after a stay in the ICU [15]. The frequency of decisions not to re-admit to the ICU varies from 6 to 11% depending on the study [13–15], with in-hospital mortality exceeding 50% in these patients [14, 15]. To the best of our knowledge, the processes leading to a decision not to re-admit a patient being taken before the patient’s discharge from the ICU have never been specifically investigated.
In this context, our goal was to describe the practices of ICU physicians in France concerning the decision not to readmit to the ICU, in light of current legislation.
Methods
Study design and questionnaire
We performed a survey of practices among physicians working in French ICUs using an electronic questionnaire sent in January 2016 to a list of physicians (N = 250) compiled for use in two previous studies [16, 17]. A questionnaire was developed comprising 21 questions about respondents’ practices in terms of re-admission of patients to the ICU during the same hospital stay and how these decisions were made. The questionnaire was constructed by 2 ICU specialists and a sociologist. The empirical data used to build the questionnaire items were obtained from a preliminary qualitative study among 18 physicians working in the ICU setting. This exploratory phase used in situ observations and semi-structured interviews (open-ended questions in one-to-one interviews) to identify factors that were potentially important for physicians to decide on non-readmission to the ICU.
Interviews were conducted until saturation of concepts; that is, interviews were stopped when the last interview yielded no new information likely to add to the empirical data already recorded. After these interviews, the items that came out of the discourse were rephrased to achieve maximum readability (using the Flesch readability test and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level). Next, the expert panel method was applied to reduce the number of items present in the final questionnaire as previously described [18].
The questionnaire is provided in Table 1.
Survey definitions
The non-readmission patient was defined as a patient hospitalised in the ICU and for whom a decision not to re-admit to the ICU was taken during the same hospital stay.
Each of the criteria was to be evaluated by the health care professionals as regards its importance for non-readmission. Fourteen responses were on a scale of frequency (yes, all of the time; yes, most of the time; sometimes; rarely; never). Five responses were yes/no questions with room for a commentary. For two items, the respondent had to tick the appropriate option from among a range of percentages, and finally, there were 7 questions relating to the respondent’s age, gender, job title (full-time staff physician, professor, junior physician), number of years’ experience in the ICU, practice location (academic or non-academic ICU in France), type of ICU (mixed, medical, surgical), number of admissions per month and per ICU, number of non-readmissions per month and per ICU. The number of non-readmissions per month and per ICU was estimated based on data recorded from the discharge letters concerning patients in the unit over the previous 3 months.
A letter detailing the protocol was sent to all physicians together with the questionnaire. All questionnaires were anonymous. This methodology has previously been described elsewhere [17, 19].
Statistical analysis
Qualitative variables are expressed as numbers (percentages) and were compared using the Chi square or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. It should be noted that the response categories “yes, all the time” and “yes, most of the time” were merged, as were the categories “rarely” and “never”.
Associations between physician (number of years’ experience) and ICU characteristics (type of unit, number of beds) and re-admission and communication practices (documentation, decision-making, information to patients, families, other providers) were explored by univariate analysis.
A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.1 (SAS institute Inc., Cary, NS, USA).
Results
Characteristics of the respondents
In total, 250 physicians were contacted, and 167 replied that they agreed to participate, and 165 (99%) actually returned a completed questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 67%. At least one physician responded from all 58 ICUs in France that were contacted. The median number of respondents per unit was 2 (interquartile range 1–4). The characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 2.
Responses to questionnaire
The details of the responses to the questionnaire are summarised in Fig 1. Detailed results are available in the supporting information (S1 File). The findings show that decisions for non-readmission are reportedly taken at the end of the patient’s stay (87%), and physicians report taking these decisions using a collegial decision-making procedure (89%), and 93% reported that this decision was then noted in the patient’s medical file. Respondents stated that they informed the unit where the patient was being transferred from the ICU about the non-readmission decision in 83% of cases, although they indicated that physicians from the receiving unit were involved in the decision in only 30% of cases. While 73% indicated that the patient’s family/relatives were informed of the decision not to re-admit, only 29% reported informing the patient.
GP, general practitioner.
Regarding the participants in the decision-making process, respondents reported that those involved included the family and/or relatives, an outside consultant physician, a general practitioner (GP) or another specialist who regular cared for the patient in respectively 10%, 34%, 14% and 29%. Conversely, 85% responded that the information regarding the non-readmission decision was communicated to the other physicians (GP or specialist) in charge of the patient’s usual care, albeit without details of how the information was given. Although the criteria justifying the decision not to re-admit were reported to be documented in the medical file by 91% of respondents, a decision to initiate palliative care was reportedly taken in only 41%.
Overall, 96% of respondents stated that they did not keep a list of “patients who are not to be re-admitted”. Similarly, 61% of respondents concurred that the criteria for non-readmission are largely the same as those leading to a decision to limit or withdraw therapy. Conversely, 92% of those who completed the survey said that they made a clear distinction between a request for re-admission to the ICU due to an intercurrent acute episode, and a request for re-admission due to deterioration of a chronic disease.
Finally, the majority of respondents (91%) considered that non-readmission decisions are an integral part of the French legislative framework regarding decisions to limit or withdraw therapy.
Univariate analysis
By univariate analysis, the number of years’ experience of the respondents was significantly associated with improved tracability in the patient file (p = 0.03), and with a more frequent propensity to inform the patient (p = 0.04). Similarly, there was a significant relationship between the type of critical unit (mixed, medical, surgical) in which the respondent worked, and the propensity to inform the patient’s family of non-readmission decisions (p = 0.01).
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically study the conditions in which non-readmission decisions are taken for patients in the ICU. The main findings show that decisions for non-readmission are taken at the end of the patient’s stay (87%), using a collegial decision-making procedure (89% of cases); 93% reported that this decision was noted in the patient’s medical file. While 73% indicated that the family/relatives were informed of non-readmission decisions, only 29% reported informing the patient, and 91% considered that non-readmission decisions are an integral part of the French legislative framework.
ICU admission or readmission has traditionally been reserved for patients with reversible medical conditions and a reasonable prospect of substantial recovery [20]. Re-admission of a patient to the ICU during a same hospital stay occurs in 5 to 10% of patients, and these patients have a two- to three-fold increase in the risk of death as compared to patients with similar initial severity of disease, but who do not require ICU re-admission [21]. The risk factors for re-admission to the ICU, as well as the resources that are mobilized to reduce morbidity and mortality in these patients have been well described [22–25].
In the literature, different approaches have been proposed to address the thorny issue of ICU re-admission, such as advance care planning (ACP) in agreement with the patient and his/her family or relatives, ethics consultations and palliative care consultations [26–30]. However, despite all these efforts, it remains clear that the ICU physician must be the arbiter of decisions regarding re-admission or non-re-admission of a patient to the ICU [1, 9]. Several arguments can be advanced to justify this position [31]. Firstly, the intensivist best knows the patient’s healthcare pathway in the ICU. Second, the intensivist is also best placed to evaluate the patient’s prognosis according to the existence of organ failure. Third, the intensivist is again the best placed to explain to the patient and/or family the aims, limitations and consequences of re-admission to the ICU.
In addition, a number of other factors may also come into play in the decision, such as physical and/or psychological distress in the patient and/or family; inappropriateness of the unit where the patient is currently hospitalized, lack of information in the medical files regarding end-of-life preferences or lack of knowledge of the patient’s choices or the family’s wishes. All these issues represent difficulties that intensive care physicians regularly have to face in emergency situations [31–34]
Ninety percent of the physicians surveyed in our study reported that they addressed the question of non-readmission with around 10% of their ICU patients. This is obviously a frequent issue that poses the ethical dilemma of the limitation on access to care resources likely to keep the patient alive. In the study by Azoulay et al [15], non-readmission was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality after an initial stay in the ICU, with an odds ratio of 9.64. The authors justified this limitation on access to care by the severity of the underlying chronic disease and of the acute episode that prompted the initial ICU stay, as well as by the persistence of organ failure. Other authors have reported similar reasons for non-readmission [6, 13, 14, 35, 36] that are line with international recommendations for end-of-life care in the ICU [3, 20].
Our survey of practices brings to light some new aspects regarding the ways in which decisions for non-readmission to the ICU come to be taken. The collegial decision-making procedure seems to be effective for 90% when decisions are being made for patients who are unable to express themselves or who are decisionally incapacitated, which is fully in line with French legislation in this regard [4]. Conversely, only 29% reported informing the patients, whereas 73% reported that they informed the family. This could be partially explained by the fact that patients who are discharged from the ICU are generally not well enough to be able to receive this specific information, not only because of their health state but also because of the anxiety and stress caused by the ICU stay [36, 37]. Indeed, the patient’s family is also often affected by this stress, in a phenomenon that has been termed “post-intensive care syndrome” [38].
The question of when to make a decision not to re-admit a patient to the ICU is crucial, and two overriding frameworks can nonetheless be proposed that would likely cover the vast majority of circumstances.
First is when the clinical course and prognosis seem to be unfavourable in the short term, and then the decision can be made at the end of the patient’s ICU stay in a collective and interdisciplinary approach [10]. This formal meeting should involve the patient where possible, either directly (if the patient is competent) or via the family and/or surrogate [39], in order to take account of the choices and preferences expressed by the patient [40]. Other referring or treating physicians should also be involved where possible in this process to make their contribution to formally establish and ratify the new healthcare project. Indeed, the results of our survey show that few other contributors (particularly medical staff) from outside of the ICU are involved in decisions not to re-admit.
The second option is to make the decision for non-readmission after discharge from the ICU, regardless of whether the patient is still in hospital or not, as a means of anticipating the future occurrence of another acute episode into advance care planning [41]. The ICU physician could participate in this decision as an outside consultant, bringing the wealth of experience gained in intensive care medicine to the table to inform the decision, as well as their expert knowledge of the patient’s prior healthcare history in the ICU [42, 43]. In this situation, the intensivist has the knowledge to explain exactly what a new admission to ICU would entail given the patient’s health state, and what can be proposed in terms of life-sustaining therapies, and what it is reasonable to do (or not). In this regard, studies testing palliative care interventions or ethics consultations [30, 44] or a rapid response team in nosocomial end-of-life [31] have found a reduction in the number of ICU admissions, with greater respect of the patient’s wishes [45], although all these studies investigated the question of ICU admission and not “non-admission”.
Study limitations
Our study suffers from some limitations that deserve to be underlined. Firstly, this was a survey of practices in France, and therefore, may not be amenable to generalisation to other countries or cultures. Secondly, the characteristics of the respondents recorded in this survey do not allow more detailed analysis of the potential influence of other factors, such as cultural or religious beliefs, in the decision-making process. Thirdly, nurses and nurses’ aides were not invited to participate in this study. Their opinions would have been interesting, as they are often deeply implicated in decision-making surrounding limitation and withdrawal of therapy in the ICU setting. Fourth, we cannot exclude the possibility that our questionnaire was not exhaustive and that other, unmeasured confounders were not taken into account.
Conversely, our study also presents several strong points. Firstly, the response rate was satisfactory since the majority of the participants have previously worked with our Department on other research projects. Secondly, the questionnaire was developed using methodologically robust qualitative methods based on semi-directive interviews, thus ensuring that the main issues arising in this context were identified, and addressed with relevant questions in the survey. Thirdly, as far as we know, this is the first study to specifically investigate the decision-making process regarding non-readmission to the ICU.
Conclusion
This study shows that decisions not to re-admit a patient to the ICU need to be formally materialized, and anticipated by involving the patient and family in the discussions, as well as the other healthcare providers that usually care for the patient. The optimal time to undertake these conversations is likely best decided on a case-by-case basis according to each patient’s individual characteristics. The issue of ICU re-admission needs to be anticipated during the initial ICU stay to allow a time for reflection that is commensurate with the importance and the consequences of the decision.
Supporting information
S1 File. Supporting tables.
Tables detailing responses to the questionnaire regarding decisions not to re-admit a patient to the intensive care unit, and percentage of responses for yes/no questions on the study questionnaire.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205689.s001
(DOC)
S2 File. Detailed study results.
The detailed results of the study are available in the supporting file.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205689.s002
(XLS)
S3 File. COREQ checklist.
The completed COREQ checklist is provided in the supporting file.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205689.s003
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Olivier Lesieur for help organising the distribution of the questionnaire. The authors also thank all the following participants:
ABBACK Paër-Selim, Clichy, ADRIE Christophe, Saint-Denis, AMDJAR Noura, Pontoise, ANNANE Djillali, Garches, ARNAL Jean-Michel, Toulon, ASFAR Pierre, Angers, ATTIAS Arié, Créteil, AUGARDE Roch, Nevers, AUSSEUR Antoine, Cholet, BARBAR Sader, Nîmes, BARRAUD Damien, Nancy, BASTIE Jean-Noël, Dijon, BEDUNEAU Gaëtan, Rouen, BENREZKALLAH Malika, Valenciennes, BERGER Philippe, Châlons-en-Champagne, BERKELMANS Frantz, Dunkerque, BERTRAND Pierre-Marie, Cannes, BEURET Pascal, Roanne, BLAYAU Clarisse, Clichy, BLOT François, Villejuif, BODET-CONTENTIN Laetitia, Tours, BOLLAERT Pierre-Edouard, Nancy, BOUGEROL François, Dieppe, BOUT Hélène, Clichy, BRAUD Hélène, Rouen, BRETONNIERE Cédric, Nantes, BRUNEEL Fabrice, Versailles, CABASSON Séverin, La Rochelle, CARIOU Alain, Paris, CARPENTIER Dorothée, Rouen, CHAMPIN Philippe, Nantes, CHARLES Pierre-Emmanuel, Dijon, CHARPENTIER Julien, Paris, CHERGUI Abdelkader-Karim, Corbeil-Essonnes, CHEVALIER Stéphanie, Saint-Malo, CLAUD Bernard, Le Puy-en-Velay, CLERGUE Céline, Corbeil-Essonnes, COLAS Gabriel, Le Havre, COURANT Pierre, Avignon, COUSSON Joël, Reims, CRONIER Pierrick, Corbeil-Essonnes, DANIN Pierre-Éric, Nice, DAOUDAL Pierre, Vesoul, DAS Vincent, Montreuil, DAUBIN Cédric, Caen, DECLERQ Pierre-Louis, Dieppe, DELABRANCHE Xavier, Strasbourg, DELASTRE Olivier, Elbeuf, DELEFOSSE Didier, Beaujon Clichy, DELLAMONICA Jean, Nice, DEQUIN Pierre-François, Tours, DIEHL Jean-Luc, Paris, DJIBRE Michel, Paris, DUBOST Jean-Louis, Pontoise, DUMONT Romain, Nantes, DUPONT Hervé, Amiens, EHRMANN Stéphane, Tours, EON Béatrice, Marseille, ERALDI Jean-Pierre, Dieppe, FARTOUKH Muriel, Paris, FEISSEL Marc, Belfort, FOSSE Jean-Philippe, Nice, FRIEDMAN Diane, Garches, GAILLARD Sandrine, Bourg-en-Bresse, GARRET Charlotte, Nantes, GELINOTTE Stéphanie, Dieppe, GIBOT Sébastien, Nancy, GIRAULT Christophe, Rouen, GONTIER Olivier, Chartres, GONZALEZ Frédéric, Bobigny, GOUIN Philippe, Rouen, GRANDJEAN Benoît, Nancy, GRANGE Steven, Rouen, GRECH Ludovic, Antibes, GROUILLE Julien, Blois, GUILLOT Max, Strasbourg, GUIOT Philippe, Mulhouse, HAMADA Sophie, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, HAMZAOUI Olfa, Clamart, HEANO-BRASSEUR Juliana, Versailles, HERBLAND Alexandre, La Rochelle, HERBRECHT Jean-Etienne, Strasbourg, HOURS Sandrine, Corbeil-Essonnes, IONESCU Carmen, Mulhouse, ISERENTANT Jukes, Clichy, JACOBS Frédéric, Clamart, JACQUIER Sophie, KAROUBI Philippe, Bobigny, KEMPF Jean, Haguenau, KIMMOUN Antoine, Nancy, KUTEIFAN Khaldoun, Mulhouse, LAKHAL Karim, Nantes, LARGE Audrey, Dijon, LASCARROU Jean-Baptiste, La Roche-sur-Yon, LAUTRETTE Alexandre, Clermont-Ferrand, LEDEIN Marie, Lille, LEGRIEL Stéphane, Versailles, LEON Alain, Reims, LESIEUR Olivier, La Rochelle, LEVRAT Quentin, La Rochelle, LEVY Bruno, Nancy, LORBER Julien, Nantes, LORY Cédric, Guéret, MAAMAR Adel, Rennes, MAIZEL Julien, Amiens, MARINTHE Bruno, Saint-Dizier, MARTIN-LEFEVRE Laurent, La Roche-sur-Yon, MARTINO Frédéric, Angers, MATEU Philippe, Charleville-Mézières, MATTEI Mathieu, Nancy, MEGARBANE Bruno, Paris, MENTEC Hervé, Argenteuil, MERCAT Alain, Angers, MICHEL Philippe, Pontoise, MIRA Jean-Paul, Paris, MISSET Benoit, Rouen, MONCHI Mehran, Melun, MONNET Xavier, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, NAY Mai-Anh, Orléans, NYUNGA MAKENGA Martine, Roubaix, PEASE Sébastian, Clichy, PEIGNE Vincent, Chambéry, PEREZ Pierre, Nancy, PHAM Tai, Paris, PINIER Cédric, Tours, PINSARD Michel, Poitiers, PLOUVIER Fabienne, Agen, PRIN Sébastien, Dijon, REIGNIER Jean, Nantes, RENAULT Anne, Brest, RENNUIT Isabelle, Clichy, REUTER Danielle, Paris, ROBERT René, Poitiers, ROUCHE Jonathan, Dijon, ROUDAUT Jean-Baptiste, Dijon, ROZEC Bertrand, Nantes, SAULNIER Fabienne, Lille, SONNEVILLE Romain, Bichat Paris, SOUDAY Vincent, Angers, SOUFIR Lilia, Paris, TAMION Fabienne, Rouen, TCHENIO Xavier, Bourg-en-Bresse, THIAGARAJAH Abirami, Beaumont-sur-Oise, THIERY Guillaume, Guadeloupe, THIRION Marina, Argenteuil, THUONG Marie, Pontoise, TROCHE Gilles, Versailles, VAN DER LINDEN Thierry, Lille, VINCENT François, Montfermeil, VINCLAIR Marc, Grenoble, VIQUESNEL Gérald, Caen, ZAMBON Olivier, Nantes, ZUBER Benjamin, Versailles.
References
- 1. Amin P, Fox-Robichaud A, Divatia JV, Pelosi P, Altintas D, Eryuksel E, et al. The Intensive care unit specialist: Report from the Task Force of World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. J Crit Care 2016;35:223–8. pmid:27444985
- 2. Mark NM, Rayner SG, Lee NJ, Curtis JR. Global variability in withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med 2015;41(9):1572–85. pmid:25904183
- 3. Myburgh J, Abillama F, Chiumello D, Dobb G, Jacobe S, Kleinpell R, et al. End-of-life care in the intensive care unit: Report from the Task Force of World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. J Crit Care 2016;34:125–30. pmid:27288625
- 4.
Law 2005–370 dated 22 April 2005 regarding patients rights and end-of-life. Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise; 23 April 2005. Available online at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000446240&categorieLien=id (access date: 30 March 2018); 2005.
- 5.
Law 2016–87 dated 2 February 2016 introducing new rights for patients and persons at the end-of-life. Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise; 3 February 2016. Available online at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=46038F123BBBFC8DA2E8DE0EEE161860.tpdila19v_1?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000031970253&categorieLien=id (access date: 30 March 2018); 2016.
- 6. Quenot JP, Rigaud JP, Prin S, Barbar S, Pavon A, Hamet M, et al. Impact of an intensive communication strategy on end-of-life practices in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2012;38(1):145–52. pmid:22127479
- 7. Quenot JP, Rigaud JP, Prin S, Barbar S, Pavon A, Hamet M, et al. Suffering among carers working in critical care can be reduced by an intensive communication strategy on end-of-life practices. Intensive Care Med 2012;38(1):55–61. pmid:22127481
- 8. Quenot JP, Ecarnot F, Meunier-Beillard N, Dargent A, Eraldi JP, Bougerol F, et al. What are the ethical dimensions in the profession of intensive care specialist? Ann Transl Med 2017;5(Suppl 4):S47. pmid:29302603
- 9. Sprung CL, Truog RD, Curtis JR, Joynt GM, Baras M, Michalsen A, et al. Seeking worldwide professional consensus on the principles of end-of-life care for the critically ill. The Consensus for Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in Intensive Care Units (WELPICUS) study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014;190(8):855–66. pmid:25162767
- 10. Quenot JP, Ecarnot F, Meunier-Beillard N, Dargent A, Large A, Andreu P, et al. What are the ethical aspects surrounding the collegial decisional process in limiting and withdrawing treatment in intensive care? Ann Transl Med 2017;5(Suppl 4):S43. pmid:29302599
- 11. Rigaud JP, Giabicani M, Beuzelin M, Marchalot A, Ecarnot F, Quenot JP. Ethical aspects of admission or non-admission to the intensive care unit. Ann Transl Med 2017;5(Suppl 4):S38. pmid:29302594
- 12. Rigaud JP, Large A, Meunier-Beillard N, Gelinotte S, Declercq PL, Ecarnot F, et al. What are the ethical aspects surrounding intensive care unit admission in patients with cancer? Ann Transl Med 2017;5(Suppl 4):S42. pmid:29302598
- 13. Hanane T, Keegan MT, Seferian EG, Gajic O, Afessa B. The association between nighttime transfer from the intensive care unit and patient outcome. Crit Care Med 2008;36(8):2232–7. pmid:18664778
- 14. Santamaria JD, Duke GJ, Pilcher DV, Cooper DJ, Moran J, Bellomo R, et al. The timing of discharge from the intensive care unit and subsequent mortality. A prospective, multicenter study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;191(9):1033–9. pmid:25730675
- 15. Azoulay E, Adrie C, De Lassence A, Pochard F, Moreau D, Thiery G, et al. Determinants of postintensive care unit mortality: a prospective multicenter study. Crit Care Med 2003;31(2):428–32. pmid:12576947
- 16. Lesieur O, Leloup M, Gonzalez F, Mamzer MF, group Es. Withholding or withdrawal of treatment under French rules: a study performed in 43 intensive care units. Ann Intensive Care 2015;5(1):56.
- 17. Rigaud JP, Moutel G, Quesnel C, Eraldi JP, Bougerol F, Pavon A, et al. How patient families are provided with information during intensive care: A survey of practices. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2016;35(3):185–9. pmid:27004918
- 18. Chahraoui K, Laurent A, Bioy A, Quenot JP. Psychological experience of patients 3 months after a stay in the intensive care unit: A descriptive and qualitative study. J Crit Care 2015;30(3):599–605. pmid:25776895
- 19. Rigaud JP, Hardy JB, Meunier-Beillard N, Devilliers H, Ecarnot F, Quesnel C, et al. The concept of a surrogate is ill adapted to intensive care: Criteria for recognizing a reference person. J Crit Care 2016;32:89–92. pmid:26787167
- 20. Sprung CL, Geber D, Eidelman LA, Baras M, Pizov R, Nimrod A, et al. Evaluation of triage decisions for intensive care admission. Crit Care Med 1999;27(6):1073–9. pmid:10397207
- 21. Wong EG, Parker AM, Leung DG, Brigham EP, Arbaje AI. Association of severity of illness and intensive care unit readmission: A systematic review. Heart Lung 2016;45(1):3–9 e2. pmid:26702501
- 22. Ho KM, Dobb GJ, Lee KY, Finn J, Knuiman M, Webb SA. The effect of comorbidities on risk of intensive care readmission during the same hospitalization: a linked data cohort study. J Crit Care 2009;24(1):101–7. pmid:19272545
- 23. Vollam SA, Dutton SJ, Young D, Watkinson PJ. Out-of-hours discharge from intensive care, in-hospital mortality and intensive care readmission rates: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 2015;4:93. pmid:26179385
- 24. Stelfox HT, Bastos J, Niven DJ, Bagshaw SM, Turin TC, Gao S. Critical care transition programs and the risk of readmission or death after discharge from ICU. Intensive Care Med 2016;42(3):401–10. pmid:26694189
- 25. Niven DJ, Bastos JF, Stelfox HT. Critical care transition programs and the risk of readmission or death after discharge from an ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2014;42(1):179–87. pmid:23989177
- 26. Molloy DW, Guyatt GH, Russo R, Goeree R, O'Brien BJ, Bedard M, et al. Systematic implementation of an advance directive program in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000;283(11):1437–44. pmid:10732933
- 27. Quill TE, Holloway R. Time-limited trials near the end of life. JAMA 2011;306(13):1483–4. pmid:21972312
- 28. Scheunemann LP, McDevitt M, Carson SS, Hanson LC. Randomized, controlled trials of interventions to improve communication in intensive care: a systematic review. Chest 2011;139(3):543–54. pmid:21106660
- 29. Schneiderman LJ, Gilmer T, Teetzel HD. Impact of ethics consultations in the intensive care setting: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2000;28(12):3920–4. pmid:11153636
- 30. Schneiderman LJ, Gilmer T, Teetzel HD, Dugan DO, Blustein J, Cranford R, et al. Effect of ethics consultations on nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments in the intensive care setting: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003;290(9):1166–72. pmid:12952998
- 31. Hilton AK, Jones D, Bellomo R. Clinical review: the role of the intensivist and the rapid response team in nosocomial end-of-life care. Crit Care 2013;17(2):224. pmid:23672813
- 32. Finucane TE. How gravely ill becomes dying: a key to end-of-life care. JAMA 1999;282(17):1670–2. pmid:10553796
- 33. Gibbins J, McCoubrie R, Alexander N, Kinzel C, Forbes K. Diagnosing dying in the acute hospital setting—are we too late? Clin Med (Lond) 2009;9(2):116–9.
- 34. Glare P, Virik K, Jones M, Hudson M, Eychmuller S, Simes J, et al. A systematic review of physicians' survival predictions in terminally ill cancer patients. BMJ 2003;327(7408):195–8. pmid:12881260
- 35. Duke GJ. Metropolitan audit of appropriate referrals refused admission to intensive care. Anaesth Intensive Care 2004;32(5):702–6. pmid:15535499
- 36. Ferrand E, Robert R, Ingrand P, Lemaire F. Withholding and withdrawal of life support in intensive-care units in France: a prospective survey. French LATAREA Group. Lancet 2001;357(9249):9–14. pmid:11197395
- 37. Cassell EJ, Leon AC, Kaufman SG. Preliminary evidence of impaired thinking in sick patients. Ann Intern Med 2001;134(12):1120–3. pmid:11412052
- 38. Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, Hopkins RO, Weinert C, Wunsch H, et al. Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders' conference. Crit Care Med 2012;40(2):502–9. pmid:21946660
- 39. Quenot JP, Ecarnot F, Meunier-Beillard N, Dargent A, Large A, Andreu P, et al. What are the ethical issues in relation to the role of the family in intensive care? Ann Transl Med 2017;5(Suppl 4):S40. pmid:29302596
- 40. Ferrante LE, Pisani MA, Murphy TE, Gahbauer EA, Leo-Summers LS, Gill TM. Functional trajectories among older persons before and after critical illness. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175(4):523–9. pmid:25665067
- 41. Quenot JP, Ecarnot F, Meunier-Beillard N, Dargent A, Large A, Andreu P, et al. What are the ethical questions raised by the integration of intensive care into advance care planning? Ann Transl Med 2017;5(Suppl 4):S46. pmid:29302602
- 42. Quenot JP, Ecarnot F, Meunier-Beillard N, Dargent A, Large A, Andreu P, et al. Intensive care unit strain should not rush physicians into making inappropriate decisions, but merely reduce the time to the right decisions being made. Ann Transl Med 2016;4(16):316. pmid:27668236
- 43. Rigaud JP, Meunier-Beillard N, Aubry R, Dion M, Ecarnot F, Quenot JP. [The Intensive Care Physician: an External Consultant to Help Patients and Next of Kin with Decision-Making?]. Réanimation 2016;25(4):367–71.
- 44. Khandelwal N, Kross EK, Engelberg RA, Coe NB, Long AC, Curtis JR. Estimating the effect of palliative care interventions and advance care planning on ICU utilization: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2015;43(5):1102–11. pmid:25574794
- 45. Silveira MJ, Kim SY, Langa KM. Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death. N Engl J Med 2010;362(13):1211–8. pmid:20357283