Key result
Quality improvement program increases consent-guided ICD deactivation to ~54% in end-of-life patients.
Why the study?
ICD therapy in terminally ill patients can cause unnecessary shocks and discomfort, but communication and knowledge gaps exist regarding ICD deactivation in end-of-life care.
Does a quality improvement programme improve rates of consent-guided ICD deactivation in end-of-life care patients?
Does a quality improvement programme improve rates of consent-guided ICD deactivation in end-of-life care patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 54% vs 0%
A quality improvement programme successfully increased the rate of consent-guided ICD deactivation in end-of-life care, aligning practice with national guidelines and preventing futile shocks.
May increase consent-guided ICD deactivation via staff education; leaves open generalizability and need for controlled trials.
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) save lives in selected patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. However, in patents suffering with terminal illness, ICD therapy could pose a risk of unnecessary futile shocks which could lead to undignified discomfort in their final days of life. National guidelines advise that patients approaching the end of their natural life should be offered a compassionate choice of having their defibrillator deactivated. Following an actual clinical incident involving a patient receiving avoidable ICD shocks in his final hours, we identified shortcomings in communication and gaps in knowledge about ICD management in end-of-life care. We developed a quality improvement programme targeting training and educational support to general physicians and nurses at our large District General Hospital. A series of interventions were delivered including Grand Round presentation, departmental seminars and publicity posters. In parallel, we introduced a local protocol for implementing ICD deactivation which was published on our intranet for Trust-wide accessibility. Following interventions, we examined the clinical notes of each end-of-life care patient who died with an ICD in situ over a 6-month observation period and recorded the proportion who received consent-guided ICD deactivation versus died with an active ICD in situ because no deactivation discussion had been offered. Before our interventions in 2015, 0 out of 10 eligible patients (0%) received consent-guided ICD deactivation. Six months into our campaign to encourage healthcare workers to undertake advance care planning discussion in 2016, 7 out of 13 eligible patients (54%) received consent-guided ICD deactivation and no patients received shocks in their final month of life. This programme was successful in raising awareness of this emerging issue, improving physician knowledge and delivering patient choice as well as contributing to safe and compassionate end-of-life care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Javaid et al. (2018) studied Terminal illness with ICD in situ (n=23). Quality improvement programme for ICD deactivation vs. Pre-intervention period was evaluated on Consent-guided ICD deactivation. A quality improvement programme targeting healthcare workers increased the rate of consent-guided ICD deactivation in end-of-life patients from 0% to 54%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: