Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) can make patients feel anonymous and depersonalized [1]. Knowledge of a patient’s primary activity can mitigate the risk of depersonalization by providing insight into a patient’s values, preferences, and overall function. A patient’s primary activity is defined by how they report spending their free time. This information can be used to engage in shared decision-making, ensuring patients receive care that is goal-concordant based on the feasibility of recovering from their critical illness [2]. Therefore, we conducted a prospective observational study to determine if ICU physicians and nurses could identify their patients’ primary activities. Other objectives included determining if patients were able to return to these activities and the probability of patients surviving based on their primary activity.
From October 2013 to May 2014 [3], enrolled patients (or their surrogates) were asked to identify their primary activity prior to hospitalization (Table 1). Attending physicians and nurses on admission days 3–6 were asked to identify this activity. Patients were followed to 6 months after enrollment to assess if they had survived and returned to their activities.
Table 1.
Activity category | Description and examples | Full return to activity (%)a | Did not fully return to activity (%)b | Deceased (%)c | Unknown (%)d | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Employment | Work, vocation, or employment status | 33 (38) | 26 (30) | 28 (32) | 1 (1)e | 88 |
Student | Involves school or academics | 2 (67) | 1 (33) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 |
Physical activity | Physical exercise or strain (i.e., weight lifting, walking) | 13 (45) | 4 (14) | 12 (41) | 0 (0) | 29 |
Household | Chores requiring some amount of activity (i.e., cleaning house, shopping) | 17 (32) | 10 (19) | 24 (45) | 2 (4) | 53 |
Active | Involves activity but not as main focus (i.e., traveling, fishing) | 4 (44) | 1 (11) | 4 (44) | 0 (0)e | 9 |
Social | Engaging with other people (i.e., family time, visiting friends, therapy) | 14 (45) | 2 (6) | 13 (42) | 2 (6) | 31 |
Active sedentary | No physical strain but requires active engagement (i.e., arts and crafts, reading) | 7 (28) | 1 (4) | 15 (60) | 2 (8) | 25 |
Passive sedentary | No physical strain and no active engagement (i.e., watching TV) | 20 (50) | 0 (0) | 17 (43) | 3 (8) | 40 |
Not reported | No activity listed | NA | NA | 17 (68) | 8 (32) | 25 |
Total | NA | 110 (36) | 45 (15) | 130 (43) | 18 (6) | 303 |
aFrequency and percentage of patients within each activity category that were alive and fully returned to their primary activity 6 months post-enrollment in the study. All percentages calculated by dividing the frequency by the activity type’s total
bFrequency and percentage of patients within each activity category that were alive but did not fully return to their primary activity 6 months post-enrollment in the study
cFrequency and percentage of patients within each activity category that were deceased 6 months post-enrollment in the study
dFrequency and percentage of patients within each activity category with unknown vital and/or return to pastime status 6 months post-enrollment in the study
ePercentages do not add to 100% due to decimal place rounding
We found that clinicians had low rates of reporting knowledge of their patients’ primary activities at 13% (38/303) and 12% (35/300) for nurses and physicians, respectively. Patients’ primary activities were reported correctly for 7% (20/303) and 5% (15/300) of patients by nurses and physicians, respectively (Table 1). Among patient reported activities, the most frequent were employment (29%, 88/303) and household work (17%, 53/303). Among survivors 64% (110/173) could perform their primary activity at 6 months, 26% (45/173) could not. For 10% (18/173) of survivors we were unable to confirm if they returned to their primary activity (Table 2).
Table 2.
Physicians (n = 300; %)a | Nurses (n = 303; %)a | |
---|---|---|
Correctb | 15 (5) | 20 (7) |
Incorrectc | 18 (6) | 13 (4) |
No patient responsed | 2 (1) | 5 (2) |
No clinician responsee | 265 (88) | 265 (87) |
aTotal number of responses and percentage relative to total patient count
bInstances where clinician and patient primary activity responses agreed
cClinician and patient primary activity responses disagreed
dPatient provided no activity response but the clinician did
eClinician failed to provide an activity response
We believe that knowing how patients spend their time prior to their illness can help in shared decision-making and ensure the delivery of goal-concordant care [4]. In our study, ICU clinicians rarely reported knowing their patient’s primary activity and were correct in only half of those responses, suggesting that ICU clinicians lack an understanding of their patients’ lives prior to critical illness. This is consistent with previous work that assessed physicians’ knowledge of patients’ broader values [5]. The systematic collection of information related to patients’ values may mitigate the risk of depersonalization. Further work is needed to understand the potential impact of whether knowledge of patient activities leads to improved health outcomes and the delivery of goal-concordant care.
Abbreviations
ICU Intensive care unit
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
None.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Authors’ contributions
ATG, MCS, AMD, and MED came up with study design, implementation, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The University of Pennsylvania institutional review board approved this study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Alexi T. Gosset, Email: alexigosset@gmail.com
Michael C. Sklar, Email: michael.sklar@mail.utoronto.ca
Aaron M. Delman, Email: delman.aaron@gmail.com
Michael E. Detsky, Email: michael.detsky@sinaihealthsystem.ca
References
- 1.Brown SM, Azoulay E, Benoit D, Butler TP, Folcarelli P, Geller G, et al. The practice of respect in the ICU. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197:1389–1395. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201708-1676CP. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Laine C, Davidoff F. Patient-centered medicine. A professional evolution. JAMA. 1996;275:152–156. doi: 10.1001/jama.1996.03530260066035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Detsky ME, Harhay MO, Bayard DF, Delman AM, Buehler AE, Kent SA, et al. Discriminative accuracy of physician and nurse predictions for survival and functional outcomes 6 months after an ICU admission. JAMA. 2017;317:2187–2195. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Turnbull AE, Hartog CS. Goal-concordant care in the ICU: a conceptual framework for future research. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:1847–1849. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4873-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Uy J, White DB, Mohan D, Arnold RM, Barnato AE. Physicians’ decision-making roles for an acutely unstable critically and terminally ill patient. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1511–1517. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318287f0dd. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.