Advance care planning for patients with COVID-19: a communication guide

In view of the high morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19, early and honest conversations with patients about goals of care are vital. Advance care planning in its traditional manner may be difficult to achieve given the unpredictability of the disease trajectory. Despite this, it is crucial that patients' care wishes are explored as this will help prevent inappropriate admissions to hospital and to critical care, improve symptom control and advocate for patient choice. This article provides practical tips on how to translate decisions around treatment escalation plans into conversations, both face-to-face and over the phone, in a sensitive and compassionate manner. Care planning conversations for patients with COVID-19 should be individualised and actively involve the patient. Focusing on goals of care rather than ceilings of treatment can help to alleviate anxiety around these conversations and will remind patients that their care will never cease. Using a framework such as the ‘SPIKES’ mnemonic can help to structure this conversation. Verbally conveying empathy will be key, particularly when wearing personal protective equipment or speaking to relatives over the phone. It is also important to make time to recognise your own emotions during and/or after these conversations.

103 A Retrospective Review of the Utilization of Burn Admission Criteria

Introduction Evidence-based criteria for burn patient admission are poorly defined. Attempts have been made by commercial entities to align payors and providers with evidence-based admission criteria to optimize resource use. However, these admission criteria have not be examined critically to see if they are appropriate and effective. We developed an admission criteria algorithm based on these existing standards and have utilized it for nearly 18 months. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively review this algorithm with respect to inpatient needs and outcome to assess its effectiveness. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients admitted the burn center over a 1-year period was performed. Incomplete datasets were excluded. Patients were grouped by TBSA, < 10%, 10–20% and > 20%. Appropriateness of admission was measured used length of stay (LOS) as surrogate marker, hospitalizations of < 3 days, unless deceased, were deemed inappropriate (IAP) and 3 days or more as appropriate (AP). Results There were complete datasets for 530 patients, < 10% (n=423), 10–20% (n= 72), >20% (n=35). There were no significant differences in age, gender, or payor sources between the groups. Patients with larger TBSA burns were more likely to have suffered a flame/flash injury. All patients in the two larger TBSA groups met admission criteria per algorithm. All IAP were in the < 10% group. When compared to AP, IAP were younger, 31.6 vs. 44.0 years (p< .0001), had smaller TBSA injuries 2.8% vs. 3.5% (p=.0045), had fewer clinical findings 1.4 vs 1.8 (p< .0001), fewer interventions 1.8 vs 2.6 (p< .0001) but were more likely to have suffered burns to the head 30% vs 13% (< .00001) and neck 9% vs 3% (=.0164). AP patients were more likely to have suffered contact burns 27% vs. 17% (p=.0323), full-thickness injuries 39% vs 14% (p< .0001), involvement of a major joint 42% vs 29% (p=.0085), combined burn and trauma 3% vs. 0% (p=.0444) and burns to the buttocks 7% vs 2% (p=.0357). AP patients were also more likely to require IV analgesia 82% vs 71% (p=.0107) and evaluated as likely needing surgery 82% vs 15% (p< .00001). Conclusions The admission criteria algorithm performed perfectly in patients with a ≥ 10% TBSA injury. For patients with burn < 10% TBSA the algorithm was not followed as closely leading to some inappropriate admissions. Patients with smaller burns admitted appropriately were more likely to have full thickness burns, contact burns, burns over joints and to require surgery. The algorithm was highly accurate in patients with large burns, however additional refinement is needed for those patients with smaller burn injuries.

792 A Retrospective Review of the Utilization of Burn Admission Criteria

Introduction Evidence-based criteria for burn patient admission are poorly defined. Attempts have been made by commercial entities to align payors and providers with evidence-based admission criteria to optimize resource use. However, these admission criteria have not be examined critically to see if they are appropriate and effective. We developed an admission criteria algorithm based on these existing standards and have utilized it for nearly 18 months. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively review this algorithm with respect to inpatient needs and outcome to assess its effectiveness. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients admitted the burn center over a 1 year period was performed. Incomplete datasets were excluded. Patients were grouped by TBSA, < 10%, 10–20% and > 20%. Appropriateness of admission was measured used length of stay (LOS) as surrogate marker, hospitalizations of < 3 days, unless deceased, were deemed inappropriate (IAP) and 3 days or more as appropriate (AP) Results There were complete datasets for 530 patients, < 10% (n=423), 10–20% (n= 72), >20% (n=35). There were no significant differences in age, gender, or payor sources between the groups. Patients with larger TBSA burns were more likely to have suffered a flame/flash injury. All patients in the two larger TBSA groups met admission criteria per algorithm. All IAP were in the < 10% group. When compared to AP, IAP were younger, 31.6 vs. 44.0 years (p< .0001), had smaller TBSA injuries 2.8% vs. 3.5% (p=.0045), had fewer clinical findings 1.4 vs 1.8 (p< .0001), fewer interventions 1.8 vs 2.6 (p< .0001) but were more likely to have suffered burns to the head 30% vs 13% (< .00001) and neck 9% vs 3% (=.0164). AP patients were more likely to have suffered contact burns 27% vs. 17% (p=.0323), full-thickness injuries 39% vs 14% (p< .0001), involvement of a major joint 42% vs 29% (p=.0085), combined burn and trauma 3% vs. 0% (p=.0444) and burns to the buttocks 7% vs 2% (p=.0357). AP patients were also more likely to require IV analgesia 82% vs 71% (p=.0107) and evaluated as likely needing surgery 82% vs 15% (p< .00001). Conclusions The admission criteria algorithm performed perfectly in patients with a ≥ 10% TBSA injury. For patients with burn < 10% TBSA the algorithm was not followed as closely leading to some inappropriate admissions. Patients with smaller burns admitted appropriately were more likely to have full thickness burns, contact burns, burns over joints and to require surgery. The algorithm was highly accurate in patients with large burns, however additional refinement is needed for those patients with smaller burn injuries. Applicability of Research to Practice This study helps to define appropriateness of inpatient care following burn injury.

Development and Implementation of a clinical pathway to reduce inappropriate admissions among patients with Community acquired pneumonia in a private health system in Brazil: An observational cohort study and a promising tool for efficiency improvement.

Background: Patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) at low risk of death by CURB-65 scoring system are usually unnecessarily treated as inpatients generating additional economic and clinical burden. We aimed to implement an evidence based clinical pathway to reduce hospital admissions of low risk CAP and investigate factors related to mortality and readmissions within 30 days.Methods: From November 2015 to August 2017 a clinical pathway was implemented at twenty hospitals. We included patients aged >18 years, with a diagnosis of CAP by the attendant physician. The main outcome was the monthly proportion of low risk CURB-65 admission after implementation of the clinical pathway. Logistic regression models were performed to assess variables associated with mortality and readmission in the admitted population within 30 days.Results: We included 10909 participants with suspected CAP. The proportion of low risk CAP admitted decreased from 22.1% to 12.8% in the period. Among participants with low risk, there has been no perceptible increase in deaths (0.80%) or readmissions (6.92%). Regression analysis identified that CURB-65 variables, presence of pleural effusion (OR= 1.74; 95%IC=1.08-2.8; p=0.02) and leucopenia (OR= 2.47; 95%IC=1.11-5.48;p=0.02) were independently associated with 30-day mortality whereas a prolonged hospital stay (OR= 2.09; 95%=1.14-3.83;p=0.01) were associated with 30-day readmission in the low risk population.Conclusion: The implementations of a clinical pathway diminished the proportion of low risk CAP admissions with no apparent increase of clinical outcomes within 30 days. Nonetheless, additional factors influences the clinical decision about site of care management in low risk CAP.