Table 18:
Effect of Patient Care Planning Discussions on Care in an Intensive Care Unit
| Author, Year | Study Design | Tool Used? | Results Intervention | Results Control | Odds Ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Single-Provider Discussion vs. Usual Care or No Discussion GRADE for all evidence: Very low | |||||
| Mack et al, 2012 (58) | Obs-cont | No | ICU care at EoL: 64/1082 (5.9%) | ICU care at EoL: 7/149 (4.7%) | 1.28 (0.57, 2.84) |
| Wright et al, 2008 (60) | Obs-cont | No | ICU admission: 5/123 (4.1%) | ICU admission: 26/209 (12.4%) | 0.30 (0.11, 0.80)a |
| Zhang et al, 2009 (53) | Obs-cont | No | ICU stay: 2/75 (2.7%) | ICU stay: 10/70 (14.3%) | 0.16 (0.03, 0.78)a |
| Pooled estimate (3 obs-cont studies, RE), I2 = 75% | 0.44 (0.13, 1.53) | ||||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; EoL, end of life; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; ICU, intensive care unit; Obs-cont, observational study with contemporaneous control; RE, random effects.
a
Statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05.