IMPORTANCE Professional guidelines have identified key communication skills for shared decisionmaking for critically ill patients, but it is unclear how intensivists interpret and implement them.OBJECTIVE To compare the self-evaluations of intensivists reviewing transcripts of their own simulated intensive care unit family meetings with the evaluations of trained expert colleagues. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA posttrial web-based survey of intensivists was conducted between January and March 2019. Intensivists reviewed transcripts of simulated intensive care unit family meetings in which they participated in a previous trial from October 2016 to November 2017. In the follow-up survey, participants identified if and how they performed key elements of shared decision-making for an intensive care unit patient at high risk of death. Transcript texts that intensivists self-identified as examples of key communication skills recommended by their professional society's policy on shared decision-making were categorized. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Comparison of the evaluations of 2 blinded nonparticipant intensivist colleagues with the self-reported responses of the intensivists. RESULTS Of 116 eligible intensivists, 76 (66%) completed the follow-up survey (mean [SD]respondent age was 43.1 [8.1] years; 72% were male). Sixty-one of 76 intensivists reported conveying prognosis; however, blinded colleagues who reviewed the deidentified transcripts were less likely to report that prognosis had been conveyed than intensivists reviewing their own transcripts (42 of 61; odds ratio, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.44; P < .001). When reviewing their own transcript, intensivists reported presenting many choices, with the most common choice being code status. They also provided a variety of recommendations, with the most common being to continue the current treatment plan. Thirty-three participants (43%) reported that they offered care focused on comfort, but blinded colleagues rated only 1 (4%) as explaining this option in a clear manner. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this study, guidelines for shared decision-making and end of life care were interpreted by intensivists in disparate ways. In the absence of training or personalized feedback, self-assessment of communication skills may not be interpreted consistently.
Use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED), including permanent pacemakers (PPM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), has increased dramatically over the past two decades. Most CIED infections are caused by staphylococci. Fungal causes are rare and their prognosis is poor. To our knowledge, there has not been a previously reported case of multifocal Candida endocarditis involving both a native left-sided heart valve and a CIED lead. Here, we report the case of a 70-year-old patient who presented with nausea, vomiting, and generalised fatigue, and was found to have Candida glabrata endocarditis involving both a native aortic valve and right atrial ICD lead. We review the literature and summarise four additional cases of CIED-associated Candida endocarditis published from 2009 to 2014, updating a previously published review of cases prior to 2009. We additionally review treatment guidelines and discuss management of CIED-associated Candida endocarditis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.