Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Open access
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ Open
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ Open

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Open access
    • Contact
  • RSS feeds
Research
Open Access

Quality of end-of-life communication in 2 high-risk ICU cohorts: a retrospective cohort study

Tammy L. Pham and Allan Garland
May 21, 2021 9 (2) E570-E575; DOI: https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20200146
Tammy L. Pham
Physician Assistant Education Program (Pham), University of Manitoba; Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (Pham); Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences (Garland), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man.
MPAS MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Allan Garland
Physician Assistant Education Program (Pham), University of Manitoba; Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (Pham); Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences (Garland), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man.
MD MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Patient and illness characteristics among 2 ICU cohorts, 2000–2017

    VariableNo. (%) of cohort*
    Nursing home
    n = 230
    ECMO
    n = 109
    Age, yr
     Mean ± SD72.0 ± 10.651.8 ± 15.8
     Median (IQR)73 (64–80)56 (44–64)
    Sex, female103 (44.8)45 (41.3)
    Year of admission
     2000–20045 (2.2)0
     2005–200970 (30.4)8 (7.3)
     2010–201488 (38.3)60 (55.0)
     2015–201767 (29.1)41 (37.6)
    Location of residence
     Urban77 (70.6)
     Rural26 (23.9)
    Out-of-province or nursing home resident6 (5.5)
    Socioeconomic status quintile
     1 (lowest income)29 (28.2)
     224 (23.3)
     311 (10.7)
     417 (16.5)
     5 (highest income)22 (21.4)
    Category of primary diagnosis at admission
     Cardiovascular52 (21.7)59 (54.1)
     Infectious78 (33.9)26 (23.9)
     Respiratory47 (20.4)23 (21.1)
     All others55 (23.9)1 (0.9)
    Disease severity
     APACHE II score, mean ± SD22.4 ± 6.428.5 ± 8.1
     APACHE II score, median (IQR)22 (17–27)27 (22–35)
     GCS, mean ± SD12.0 ± 3.48.3 ± 4.6
     GCS, median (IQR)13 (10–15)7 (3–13)
     APS, mean ± SD12.9 ± 4.818.7 ± 6.0
     APS, median (IQR)13 (9–16)18 (14–23)
     APS-neuro score, mean ± SD10.1 ± 5.412.0 ± 7.1
     APS-neuro score, median (IQR)10 (6–14)12 (7–17)
    Elapsed ACP time, d
     Mean ± SD,2.9 ± 6.29.1 ± 16.3
     Median (IQR)1.0 (1–2)4.0 (1–13)
    ECMO type
     Venovenous with or without arteriovenous16 (14.7)
     Arteriovenous only91 (83.5)
    Level of care†
     Resuscitation56 (24.3)44 (40.4)
     Medical90 (39.1)6 (5.5)
     Comfort care57 (24.8)45 (41.3)
     Missing27 (11.8)14 (12.8)
    Hospital length of stay, d
     Mean ± SD20.1 ± 33.433.8 ± 35.1
     Median (IQR)11 (6–19)20 (9–48)
    Hospital death69 (30.0)51 (46.8)
    • Note: APACHE = acute physiology and chronic health evaluation, APS = acute physiology score, APS-neuro score = APS score with neurologic component removed, ECMO = extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, elapsed ACP time = elapsed advance care planning time (i.e., interval between ICU admission and first chart documentation of the level of care), GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale, ICU = intensive care unit, IQR = interquartile range, SD = standard deviation.

    • ↵* Unless indicated otherwise.

    • ↵† Least aggressive level of care recorded.

    • View popup
    Table 2:

    Quality of end-of-life communication among 2 ICU cohorts, 2000–2017, unadjusted values*

    Weighted scores*Nursing home cohortECMO cohortp value†
    Composite measure of EOL communication*
     Mean ± SD48.5 ± 25.849.1 ± 25.90.67
     Median (IQR)56.2 (28.4–73.8)52.2 (27.5–68.9)0.86
    Goals of care communication subscore
     Mean ± SD39.9 ± 28.544.7 ± 29.10.17
     Median (IQR)43.4 (8.2–63.5)50.0 (15.2–70.5)0.14
    Documentation subscore
     Mean ± SD70.9 ± 28.260.3 ± 27.10.001
     Median (IQR)80.3 (62.6–83.5)63.8 (42.9–83.5)0.001
    • Note: ECMO = extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, EOL = end-of-life, IQR = interquartile range, SD = standard deviation.

    • ↵* Measures range 0–100.

    • ↵† Mean comparison via unpaired Student t test.

    • Median comparison via Mann–Whitney test.

    • View popup
    Table 3:

    Median regression results for composite measure of end-of-life communication among 2 ICU cohorts, 2000–2017

    VariableCoefficient (95% CI)
    Cohort
     Nursing home cohortReference
     ECMO cohort−0.56 (−13.15 to 12.02)
    Age (per year)0.50 (0.21 to 0.78)*
    Sex
     MaleReference
     Female−2.29 (−12.21 to 7.63)
    Year of admission (per year)1.69 (0.54 to 2.84)*
    Glasgow Coma Scale score (per point)−1.84 (−3.21 to −0.47)*
    APS-neuro score (per point)0.72 (−0.18 to 1.63)
    Category of primary diagnosis at admission
     CardiovascularReference
     Infectious0.93 (−9.02 to 10.88)
     Respiratory−8.56 (−24.16 to 7.05)
     Other−3.42 (−15.76 to 8.92)
    • Note: APS-neuro score = acute physiologic score with neurologic component removed, CI = confidence interval, ECMO = extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

    • ↵* p value significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons using the 0.05 false discovery rate threshold.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ Open: 9 (2)
Vol. 9, Issue 2
1 Apr 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quality of end-of-life communication in 2 high-risk ICU cohorts: a retrospective cohort study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ Open web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Quality of end-of-life communication in 2 high-risk ICU cohorts: a retrospective cohort study
Tammy L. Pham, Allan Garland
Apr 2021, 9 (2) E570-E575; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20200146

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Quality of end-of-life communication in 2 high-risk ICU cohorts: a retrospective cohort study
Tammy L. Pham, Allan Garland
Apr 2021, 9 (2) E570-E575; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20200146
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Clinical
    • Critical Care, Intensive Care
      • Adult
    • Cardiovascular Medicine
      • Other cardiovascular medicine
    • Geriatric Medicine
      • Other geriatric medicine
    • Respiratory Medicine (Respirology)
      • Other respiratory medicine
  • Nonclinical
    • Ethics
      • End-of-life decisions
    • Patients
      • Other patients

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panel
  • Contact Us
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2025, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CMAJ OPEN represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

 

Powered by HighWire