Priority levels in cancer patients admitted to medical intensive care at a safety net hospital.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18599-e18599
Author(s):  
Raisa Epistola ◽  
Michael Olufemi Shodiya ◽  
Jordan Epistola ◽  
Dong Chang ◽  
James Jen-Chi Yeh
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Safety Net Hospital ◽  
Priority Levels

e18599 Background: Admissions of cancer patients to intensive care units (ICU) are increasing with improved mortality. While ICU care can be lifesaving, its higher cost does not always result in reduced mortality. Moreover, timely goals of care (GOC) discussions correlate with less ICU use in those with certain cancers. We investigate if hospital mortality and disposition outcomes for cancer patients correlate to triage by ICU providers. Methods: This subgroup analysis of a prospective cohort of 808 patients admitted to the ICU from 1 July 2015- 15 June 2016 at an academic safety net hospital included 106 patients diagnosed with cancer. Medical records were reviewed by ICU physicians, who assigned priority ranks using Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines: 1: critically ill, needing treatment/monitoring not provided outside of ICU, 2: not critically ill, but requiring close monitoring/potentially immediate intervention, 3: critically ill patients with reduced likelihood of recovery, 4: not appropriate for ICU, equivalent outcomes achieved with non-ICU care. We did a chart review for factors like prior therapy and documentation of GOC discussions. Statistical tests were conducted to examine if priority levels correlate with disposition, mortality, and length of stay (LOS). Results: χ2-tests revealed priority rank correlated with disposition after hospitalization (p<.05) with group 3 having the highest proportion of deaths and lowest proportion of discharges home. It revealed that mortality rate differed by group (p<.05) with logistic regression showing that priority 3 predicted increased mortality (p<.05). ANCOVA indicated ICU LOS differed by priority group (p<.05), with priority 3 averaging the longest LOS. While priority 3 had the most in-hospital GOC discussions, relatively few were documented pre-hospitalization. Conclusions: Overall, our patients were accurately triaged, with worse mortality and discharge outcomes among priority 3 and a dearth of pre-hospitalization GOC documentation for all groups. Our data show the importance of triaging patients and having early, frequent GOC discussions to minimize ICU admission given increasing demand and costs. GOC discussions are associated with less aggressive medical care near death and better patient quality of life. Thus, holding these talks with our sickest patients prior to potential ICU admission is an area to improve cost-effective high quality care.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Implementation of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring Program at a Safety Net Hospital During Covid 19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. A345-A346
Author(s):  
Erin E Finn ◽  
Lindsay Schlichting ◽  
Rocio Ines Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Program ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Surgical Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Safety Net Hospital ◽  
Urban Safety

Abstract Background: COVID 19 disproportionately impacts individuals with diabetes leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Hyperglycemia is common in hospitalized patients with COVID requiring intensive monitoring and management. Close monitoring of glucoses requires increased use of personal protective equipment (PPE), which has been in limited supply since the beginning of the pandemic. The FDA granted conditional allowance for use of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) in hospital settings during the COVID pandemic to allow for preservation of PPE. We present the process of implementing a continuous glucose monitoring program in an urban safety net hospital. Methods: The program was implemented at a county urban safety net hospital. Patients were eligible to be started on Dexcom G6 CGM if they had hyperglycemia requiring multiple insulin injections daily, were in contact isolation, and were located in 1 of 3 units of the hospital (medical intensive care unit [MICU], surgical intensive care unit, COVID 19 floor unit). Initial program was started in the MICU and subsequently expanded. Nurses and staff underwent training using videos, in-person demonstrations, and written guides. Informational Technology modified the electronic medical system to allow for ordering and documentation of CGM values by nurses. Supplies were stored both on unit and in central supply allowing for primary team to initiate monitoring independent of diabetes team. Records of patients participating in program were maintained by the diabetes team. Amount of PPE saved was estimated to be 10 instances/day while on insulin drip and 3/day when using subcutaneous insulin. Results: A total of 69 patients used a CGM during their hospital course. Average age was 56 years old, 69 % were male, average BMI 31, and 84% had known diabetes prior to admission. The majority of patients were critically ill with 68% intubated, 48% on vasopressors, 6% requiring dialysis, 38% on insulin drip, 46% were on tube feeds, and 74% received steroids. The racial demographics of the patients were 72% White, 3% Black, 4% Native American, 4% Asian, and 14% other. For ethnicity, 73% identified as Hispanic and half spoke Spanish as their primary language. An estimated 2600 instances of PPE were saved. Challenges that were faced in implementing the program included consistent training of large numbers of staff, maintaining supplies in stock, troubleshooting discordant values, and restricting use of CGM to patients who met qualifications. Conclusion: Overall, the implementation of CGM was successful and received a positive response. Staff in the primary units quickly became comfortable with the application of the technology. Potential challenges in the future include ongoing training, improving troubleshooting of technology, validating the accuracy of the devices, and developing funding for CGM equipment and interpretation.

Palliative care and end-of-life health care utilization of pancreatic cancer patients at an urban safety-net hospital.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 489-489
Author(s):  
Nizar Bhulani ◽  
M. Elizabeth Paulk ◽  
Arjun Gupta ◽  
Kiauna Donnell ◽  
Valorie Harvey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Safety Net Hospital

489 Background: There has been an increase in Palliative care utilization in cancer patients. We examined trends of palliative care and intensive care utilization in pancreatic cancer patients in an urban setting safety net hospital. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of pancreatic cancer patients seen at the Parkland Health and Hospital System between January 1999 and September 2016. Cancer cases and receipt of palliative care were identified from prospectively maintained registries. Health care utilization including intensive care unit (ICU) was reviewed. All statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS version 24. Results: We identified 455 new diagnoses of pancreatic cancer, mean age 61 years, 227 (50%) female and 228 (50%) white. Of these, 277 (61%) received palliative care ever. Patient who received palliative care were more likely to be younger (mean age, 59.3+-12 vs 62.8 +- 12 years) and have stage 4 disease vs stage 1-3 disease (p 0.006, and p 0.003 respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in palliative care utilization between gender and ethnicity groups. 140 patients had a DNR order and 29 required ICU admission at any point. A first contact with palliative care consult was obtained < = 7 days before death for 29 (10%) patients, < = 30 days before death for 86 (31%) patients, 30-60 days before death for 50 (18%) and more than 60 days before death for 141 (51%) patients. Patients receiving palliative care were more likely to have a DNR status (p < 0.001) but had no difference in ICU use within the last 30 days of life (p 0.285). Conclusions: The rate of palliative care in patients with pancreatic cancer in this cohort from a safety net hospital is higher than nationally reported studies. Most patients received palliative care > 30 days before death. While patients received early palliative care, it did not result in reduced ICU care. Factors influencing ICU care utilization near the end of life need further study.

Outcomes of patients with malignancy admitted to the intensive care units (ICU): A prospective study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24001-e24001
Author(s):  
Hazem Assi ◽  
Ibrahim Alameh ◽  
Maroun Bou Zerdan ◽  
Maya Charafeddine ◽  
Jessica Khoury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Icu Discharge ◽  
Short And Long Term

e24001 Background: An important aspect of improving outcomes for patients with malignancy is the provision of critical care during periods of acute deterioration. Decisions regarding whether advanced cancer patients should be admitted to the ICU is based on a complex suite of considerations, including short- and long-term prognosis, quality of life, and therapeutic options to treat cancer. We set to describe demographic, clinical, and survival data and to identify factors associated with short- and long-term mortality in critically ill advanced cancer patients with non-elective admissions to general ICUs. Methods: Critically ill adult (≥18-year-old) cancer patients non-electively admitted to the intensive care units at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) between August 1st, 2015, and March 1st, 2019, were included. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data was prospectively collected from first day of ICU admission up to 30 days after discharge. This study was strictly observational and clinical decisions were left to the discretion of the ICU team and attending physician. Results: Two hundred seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study between August 1st, 2015, and March 31st, 2019, with an ICU mortality rate of 43.4%, with the number rising to 59% within 30 days of ICU discharge. Mean length of stay in our ICU was 14 days with an interquartile range of 1 to 120 days with a median overall survival of 22 days since date of ICU admission. The major reasons for unplanned ICU admission were sepsis/septic shock (54%) and respiratory failure (33.1%). COX regression analysis showed that sepsis, uncontrolled malignancy, ARDS, multi-organ failure, use of vasopressors, use of mechanical ventilation are major predictors of poor prognosis. Direct admission from the ED was associated with a higher risk of mortality (48.9%) than being transferred from the floor (32.6%) (p = 0.014). Additionally, mortality in patients with solid malignancies (47.6%) was higher than those with hematologic malignancies (34.1%) (p = 0.0048). Conclusions: Patients admitted to the ICU in a tertiary care center in the MENA region are at high risk for short term mortality.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Patients with Malignancy Admitted to the Intensive Care Units: A Prospective Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Hazem I. Assi ◽  
Nour Abdul Halim ◽  
Ibrahim Alameh ◽  
Jessica Khoury ◽  
Vicky Nahra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Icu Discharge

Introduction. Decisions regarding whether advanced cancer patients should be admitted to the ICU are based on a complex suite of considerations, including short- and long-term prognosis, quality of life, and therapeutic options to treat cancer. We aimed to describe demographic, clinical, and survival data and to identify factors associated with mortality in critically ill advanced cancer patients with nonelective admissions to general ICUs. Materials and Methods. Critically ill adult (≥18 years old) cancer patients nonelectively admitted to the intensive care units at the American University of Beirut Medical Center between August 1st 2015 and March 1st 2019 were included. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were prospectively collected from the first day of ICU admission up to 30 days after discharge. This study was strictly observational, and clinical decisions were left to the discretion of the ICU team and attending physician. Results. 272 patients were enrolled in the study between August 1st 2015 and March 1st 2019, with an ICU mortality rate of 43.4%, with the number rising to 59% within 30 days of ICU discharge. The mean length of stay in our ICU was 14 days (IQR: 1–120) with a median overall survival of 22 days since the date of ICU admission. The major reasons for unplanned ICU admission were sepsis/septic shock (54%) and respiratory failure (33.1%). Cox regression analysis revealed 7 major predictors of poor prognosis. Direct admission from the ED was associated with a higher risk of mortality (48.9%) than being transferred from the floor (32.6%) ( p = 0.014 ). Conclusion. Our study has shown that being directly admitted to the ICU from the ED rather than being transferred from regular wards, developing AKI, sepsis, MOF, and ARDS, or having an uncontrolled malignancy are all predictive factors for short-term mortality in critically ill cancer patients nonelectively admitted to the ICU. Vasopressor use and mechanical ventilation were also predictors of mortality.

scholarly journals P012: Mortality rate of cancer patients by type presenting to the intensive care unit with sepsis.

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S67
Author(s):  
S. Beckett ◽  
E. Karreman ◽  
R. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Poor Prognosis ◽  
Solid Tumours ◽  
Icu Mortality ◽  
Icu Admission

Introduction: Sepsis in cancer patients is associated with higher mortality rates than non-cancer patients. As a whole, hematological or solid tumor cancers have not demonstrated a prognostic link to sepsis survival rates in intensive care units (ICU), however poor-prognosis solid tumours (less than 25% 5-year survival) have not been investigated. This study examined ICU mortality rate and its predictive factors of patients with sepsis and poor-prognosis solid tumors in comparison to patients with higher prognosis solid tumours. Methods: A 6-year retrospective chart review of 79 patients with sepsis and solid tumour cancers and/or metastatic cancers admitted to the ICU was conducted. Information regarding mortality rate within 14 days, length of ICU stay, incidence of intubation, and other primary reasons for ICU admission was collected. Data was analysed using logistic regression. Results: Logistic regression results showed intubation as the only significant factor contributing to patient mortality (p &lt; .001), with the odds of mortality being 12.3 times higher for intubated than non-intubated patients. Five-year cancer survival rate was the second best predictor (p = .082), while age, sex, and metastasis were also not significant predictive factors for survival. Intubated patients with poor prognosis cancers had the lowest survival chance as further indicated by the 16 patients who met this criterion, of which 14 died within two weeks of ICU admission. Conclusion: The fact that poor prognosis cancers in sepsis were not significantly predictive of ICU mortality supports current literature regarding solid tumors in general, while intubation being a significant predictor for mortality in patients with sepsis and cancer regardless of type builds on previous research. A limitation of this study is the relative low number of included cases with poor-prognosis cancer types. Further evaluation is needed to understand the implications of our results for end-of-life care and ICU admission for patients with these characteristics.

scholarly journals Patterns of ICU admissions and outcomes in patients with solid malignancies over the revolution of cancer treatment

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Vigneron ◽  
Julien Charpentier ◽  
Sandrine Valade ◽  
Jérôme Alexandre ◽  
Samy Chelabi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Critical Conditions ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Solid Malignancies ◽  
Single Centre Study ◽  
Organ Failures

Abstract Background Major therapeutic advances including immunotherapy and targeted therapies have been changing the face of oncology and resulted in improved prognosis as well as in new toxic complications. The aim of this study is to appraise the trends in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and outcomes of critically ill patients with solid malignancies. We performed a retrospective single-centre study over a 12-year period (2007–2018) including adult patients with solid malignancies requiring unplanned ICU admission. Admission patterns were classified as: (i) specific if directly related to the underlying cancer; (ii) non-specific; (iii) drug-related or procedural adverse events. Results 1525 patients were analysed. Lung and gastro-intestinal tract accounted for the two main tumour sites. The proportion of patients with metastatic diseases increased from 48.6% in 2007–2008 to 60.2% in 2017–2018 (p = 0.004). Critical conditions were increasingly related to drug- or procedure-related adverse events, from 8.8% of ICU admissions in 2007–2008 to 16% in 2017–2018 (p = 0.01). The crude severity of critical illness at ICU admission did not change over time. The ICU survival rate was 77.4%, without any significant changes over the study period. Among the 1279 patients with complete follow-up, the 1-year survival rate was 33.2%. Independent determinants of ICU mortality were metastatic disease, cancer in progression under treatment, admission for specific complications and the extent of organ failures (invasive and non-invasive ventilation, inotropes/vasopressors, renal replacement therapy and SOFA score). One-year mortality in ICU-survivors was independently associated with lung cancer, metastatic disease, cancer in progression under treatment, admission for specific complications and decision to forgo life-sustaining therapies. Conclusion Advances in the management and the prognosis of solid malignancies substantially modified the ICU admission patterns of cancer patients. Despite underlying advanced and often metastatic malignancies, encouraging short-term and long-term outcomes should help changing the dismal perception of critically ill cancer patients.

scholarly journals Selection criteria for intensive care unit referral of lung cancer patients: a pilot study

2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Claire Toffart ◽  
Carola Alegria Pizarro ◽  
Carole Schwebel ◽  
Linda Sakhri ◽  
Clemence Minet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Organ Failures ◽  
Intensity Of Care

The decision-making process for the intensity of care delivered to patients with lung cancer and organ failure is poorly understood, and does not always involve intensivists. Our objective was to describe the potential suitability for intensive care unit (ICU) referral of lung cancer in-patients with organ failures.We prospectively included consecutive lung cancer patients with failure of at least one organ admitted to the teaching hospital in Grenoble, France, between December 2010 and October 2012.Of 140 patients, 121 (86%) were evaluated by an oncologist and 49 (35%) were referred for ICU admission, with subsequent admission for 36 (73%) out of those 49. Factors independently associated with ICU referral were performance status ⩽2 (OR 10.07, 95% CI 3.85–26.32), nonprogressive malignancy (OR 7.00, 95% CI 2.24–21.80), and no explicit refusal of ICU admission by the patient and/or family (OR 7.95, 95% CI 2.39–26.37). Factors independently associated with ICU admission were the initial ward being other than the lung cancer unit (OR 6.02, 95% CI 1.11–32.80) and an available medical ICU bed (OR 8.19, 95% CI 1.48–45.35).Only one-third of lung cancer patients with organ failures were referred for ICU admission. The decision not to consider ICU admission was often taken by a non-intensivist, with advice from an oncologist rather than an intensivist.

scholarly journals Incidence of Delirium in Critically Ill Cancer Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis A. Sánchez-Hurtado ◽  
Nancy Hernández-Sánchez ◽  
Mario Del Moral-Armengol ◽  
Humberto Guevara-García ◽  
Francisco J. García-Guillén ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Potential Risk ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Icu Stay ◽  
Potential Risk Factors

Objective. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of delirium and its risk factors among critically ill cancer patients in an intensive care unit (ICU). Materials and Methods. This is a prospective cohort study. The Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) was measured daily at morning to diagnose delirium by a physician. Delirium was diagnosed when the daily was positive during a patient’s ICU stay. All patients were followed until they were discharged from the ICU. Using logistic regression, we estimated potential risk factors for developing delirium. The primary outcome was the development of ICU delirium. Results. There were 109 patients included in the study. Patients had a mean age of 48.6 ± 18.07 years, and the main reason for admission to the ICU was septic shock (40.4%). The incidence of delirium was 22.9%. The mortality among all subjects was 15.6%; the mortality rate in patients who developed delirium was 12%. The only variable that had an association with the development of delirium in the ICU was the days of use of mechanical ventilation (OR: 1.06; CI 95%: 0.99–1.13;p=0.07). Conclusion. Delirium is a frequent condition in critically ill cancer patients admitted to the ICU. The duration in days of mechanical ventilation is potential risk factors for developing delirium during an ICU stay. Delirium was not associated with a higher rate of mortality in this group of patients.

The Long and Winding Road to Personalized Glycemic Control in the Intensive Care Unit

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (05) ◽  
pp. 571-579
Author(s):  
Mayanka Tickoo
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Physiological Stress ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Physiological Stress Response ◽  
Downstream Effects ◽  
Personalized Approach

AbstractIn the critically ill adult, dysglycemia is a marker of disease severity and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Close monitoring of glucose and use of insulin in critically ill patients have been done for more than 2 decades, but the appropriate target glycemic range in critically ill patients remains controversial. Physiological stress response, levels of inflammatory cytokines, nutritional intake, and level of mobility affect glycemic control, and a more personalized approach to patients with dysglycemia is warranted in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We discuss the pathophysiology and downstream effects of altered glycemic response in critical illness, management of glycemic control in the ICU, and future strategies toward personalization of critical care glycemic management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document