Best Case/Worst Case-ICU: protocol for a multisite, stepped-wedge, randomised clinical trial of scenario planning to improve communication in the ICU in US trauma centres for older adults with serious injury

Author:

Stalter LilyORCID,Hanlon Bret MORCID,Bushaw Kyle J,Kwekkeboom Kristine L,Zelenski AmyORCID,Fritz Melanie,Buffington Anne,Stein Deborah MORCID,Cocanour Christine S,Robles Anamaria J,Jansen Jan,Brasel Karen,O'Connell Kathleen M,Cipolle Mark D,Ayoung-Chee Patricia,Morris Rachel,Gelbard Rondi B,Kozar Rosemary A,Lueckel Stephanie,Schwarze MargaretORCID

Abstract

IntroductionPoor communication about serious injury in older adults can lead to treatment that is inconsistent with patient preferences, create conflict and strain healthcare resources. We developed a communication intervention called Best Case/Worst Case-intensive care unit (ICU) that uses daily scenario planning, that is, a narrative description of plausible futures, to support prognostication and facilitate dialogue among patients, their families and the trauma ICU team. This article describes a protocol for a multisite, randomised, stepped-wedge study to test the effectiveness of the intervention on the quality of communication (QOC) in the ICU.Methods and analysisWe will follow all patients aged 50 and older admitted to the trauma ICU for 3 or more days after a serious injury at eight high-volume level 1 trauma centres. We aim to survey one family or ‘like family’ member per eligible patient 5–7 days following their loved ones’ admission and clinicians providing care in the trauma ICU. Using a stepped-wedge design, we will use permuted block randomisation to assign the timing for each site to begin implementation of the intervention and routine use of the Best Case/Worst Case-ICU tool. We will use a linear mixed-effects model to test the effect of the tool on family-reported QOC (using the QOC scale) as compared with usual care. Secondary outcomes include the effect of the tool on reducing clinician moral distress (using the Measure of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals scale) and patients’ length of stay in the ICU.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional review board (IRB) approval was granted at the University of Wisconsin, and all study sites ceded review to the primary IRB. We plan to report results in peer-reviewed publications and national meetings.Trial registration numberNCT05780918.

Funder

Clinical Center

Publisher

BMJ

Reference39 articles.

1. Traumatic Brain Injury in Older Adults: Epidemiology, Outcomes, and Future Implications

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control . 10 leading causes of nonfatal injuries, United States, 2014, all races, both sexes, disposition: All cases, ages: 65-85, 2014. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

3. The optimum follow-up period for assessing mortality outcomes in injured older adults;Fleischman;J Am Geriatr Soc,2010

4. Shared Decision Making — Finding the Sweet Spot

5. Are Regional Variations in End-of-Life Care Intensity Explained by Patient Preferences?

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3