DECODE the quality of dying in the intensive care unit
Résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Objective Existing national quality of care processes do not assess quality of care for the dying patient. We developed the Documentation and Evaluation of Care of Dying Equation (DECoDE) score, a 21-point unweighted binary questionnaire. for this purpose. Design Retrospective clinical audit by clinical staff of medical records. Setting Two metropolitan adult intensive care units (ICU) in Victoria. Participants 157 randomly selected records of adults who died in ICU between 1 Jan 2015 – 30 June 2017. Main outcomes DECoDE audit score, patient characteristics, and therapeutics delivered in the last 24hrs of life. Results Over 30-months there were 5,194 ICU admissions and 539 (10.4%) deaths - 157 (43.9%) were randomly selected for audit. 122 (82.2%) were receiving curative treatment within the 24-hours prior to death. 130 (83%) deaths were expected and occurred 1.5 (IQR =1-4) days after agreement to withdraw treatment. Median DE-CoDE score was 11 (IQR =9-13) out of a maximum score of 21. Factors associated with a lower DECoDE score included shorter length of stay, unexpected death, and non-oncologic diagnosis. Other patient factors including age, severity of illness (APACHE-IIIJ) score =102 [IQR =80-128]), and organ donation (7%) were not significant. Conclusion The DECoDE audit tool may be useful for screening of care provided to dying patients in ICU. Not all patients require a high score for high quality care but a low score may indicate poor quality of care, warranting further review.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- DECODE the quality of dying in the intensive care unit
- Date Crossref
- 15/07/2025
- Éditeur
- openRxiv
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.