Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:13:49.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What do we know about experiencing end-of-life in burn intensive care units? A scoping review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2022

André Filipe Ribeiro
Affiliation:
MEDCIDS: Medicina da Comunidade, Informação e Decisão em Saúde, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Sandra Martins Pereira*
Affiliation:
Research Department, CEGE – Research Center in Management and Economics, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Porto, Portugal Instituto de Bioética, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Porto, Portugal
Rui Nunes
Affiliation:
MEDCIDS: Medicina da Comunidade, Informação e Decisão em Saúde, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal MEDCIDS: Medicina da Comunidade, Informação e Decisão em Saúde, International Network UNESCO Chair in Bioethics, Porto, Portugal
Pablo Hernández-Marrero
Affiliation:
Portuguese Nurses Association for Long-Term and Palliative Care, Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author for correspondence: Sandra Martins Pereira, CEGE – Research Center in Management and Economics, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Porto 4169-005, Portugal. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this article is to review and synthesize the evidence on end-of-life in burn intensive care units.

Methods

Systematic scoping review: Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews was used as a reporting guideline. Searches were performed in 3 databases, with no time restriction and up to September 2021.

Results

A total of 16,287 documents were identified; 18 were selected for analysis and synthesis. Three key themes emerged: (i) characteristics of the end-of-life in burn intensive care units, including end-of-life decisions, decision-making processes, causes, and trajectories of death; (ii) symptom control at the end-of-life in burn intensive care units focusing on patients’ comfort; and (iii) concepts, models, and designs of the care provided to burned patients at the end-of-life, mainly care approaches, provision of care, and palliative care.

Significance of results

End-of-life care is a major step in the care provided to critically ill burned patients. Dying and death in burn intensive care units are often preceded by end-of-life decisions, namely forgoing treatment and do-not-attempt to resuscitate. Different dying trajectories were described, suggesting the possibility to develop further studies to identify triggers for palliative care referral. Symptom control was not described in detail. Palliative care was rarely involved in end-of-life care for these patients. This review highlights the need for early and high-quality palliative and end-of-life care in the trajectories of critically ill burned patients, leading to an improved perception of end-of-life in burn intensive care units. Further research is needed to study the best way to provide optimal end-of-life care and foster integrated palliative care in burn intensive care units.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Burns are traumatic injuries that represent a personal catastrophe (Brusselaers et al. Reference Brusselaers, Monstrey and Vogelaers2010), having physical, psychosocial, and economic consequences (AbdelWahab et al. Reference AbdelWahab, Sadaka and Elbana2018; Sierra Zúñiga et al. Reference Sierra Zúñiga, Castro Delgado and Merchán-Galvis2016; Spronk et al. Reference Spronk, Van Loey and Sewalt2020). Advances allowed to extend the lives of patients whose burn injuries would have previously been invariably fatal (Kamolz Reference Kamolz2010; Kearney et al. Reference Kearney, Francis and Clover2018; Lee et al. Reference Lee, Joory and Moiemen2014).

Burns are a global public health problem, accounting for around 300,000 deaths annually (Forbinake et al. Reference Forbinake, Ohandza and Fai2020; Stokes and Johnson Reference Stokes and Johnson2017; WHO 2018). Evidence shows that 25% of patients aged 45–65 years with severe burns die (Ray et al. Reference Ray, Karlekar and Crouse2017). Moreover, burns are among the leading causes of disability-adjusted life years and morbidity, causing unbearable suffering (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2019; WHO 2018, 2019). Patients who survive burn injuries are often left with symptoms, rehabilitation needs, and quality of life challenges (Cook et al. Reference Cook, Langston and Jaramillo2020).

Patients’ circumstances in burn intensive care units (Burn ICUs) can change rapidly (Higginson et al. Reference Higginson, Koffman and Hopkins2013b). Symptom management and communication in this context are very challenging. Furthermore, it is paramount to identify and optimally address patients’ specific needs, including the declination that may occur before death (Cohen-Mansfield et al. Reference Cohen-Mansfield, Skornick-Bouchbinder and Brill2018; Fanning et al. Reference Fanning, Farkas and DeWitt2017; Ray et al. Reference Ray, Karlekar and Crouse2017).

End-of-life care requires a specific set of competencies to enable improved quality of life, comfort, and family support. Nonetheless, end-of-life care is often neglected (Higginson et al. Reference Higginson, Evans and Grande2013a), particularly in Burn ICUs where it is rarely studied and frequently perceived as a clinical failure. End-of-life care processes in Burn ICUs can be challenging, raising relevant ethico-clinical questions about decision-making processes, informed consent, patient autonomy, patient–family–clinician relationship, and medical futility (Kerever et al. Reference Kerever, Jacquens and Smail-Faugeron2019; Teven and Gottlieb Reference Teven and Gottlieb2018). A timely recognition of the end-of-life stage allows patients and families to discuss values and preferences and make advance care plans, and clinicians to introduce appropriate, proportionate care (Stow et al. Reference Stow, Matthews and Hanratty2018). Protocols for decision-making and goals of care for critically burned patients at the end-of-life are feasible and improve end-of-life processes (Cook et al. Reference Cook, Langston and Jaramillo2020).

Palliative care (PC) improves patients and caregivers’ quality of life (Krug et al. Reference Krug, Miksch and Peters-Klimm2016; Perpina-Galvan et al. Reference Perpina-Galvan, Orts-Beneito and Fernandez-Alcantara2019; Sawatzky et al. Reference Sawatzky, Laforest and Schick-Makaroff2017), promotes cost savings (O’Connor et al. Reference O’Connor, Junker and Appel2018; Ruiz et al. Reference Ruiz, Snyder and Giuriceo2017; Sawatzky et al. Reference Sawatzky, Laforest and Schick-Makaroff2017), and relieves suffering (Streeck Reference Streeck2019). It may be provided both to patients who are likely to die within a short period of time and to seriously ill patients at any stage of their disease (Hua et al. Reference Hua, Li and Blinderman2014).

While there is not a consensual list of triggers for PC consultation in intensive care units (ICUs), it is possible to identify the following: (i) ICU after 10 or more days of hospitalization; (ii) patients over 80 years old, with 2 or more life-threatening comorbidities, where we may include burned patients; (iii) diagnosis of active stage IV malignancy metastatic disease; (iv) status after cardiac arrest; and (v) diagnosis of intracerebral hemorrhage requiring mechanical ventilation (Bradley et al. Reference Bradley, Weaver and Brasel2010; Hua et al. Reference Hua, Li and Blinderman2014; Norton et al. Reference Norton, Hogan and Holloway2007). Identifying scores with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, the Burns Wean Assessment Program, the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System, and the Wean Index may enable to explore appropriate interventions for each stage of a patient’s burns and predict weaning outcomes (Burns et al. Reference Burns, Fisher and Earven Tribble2010; Gilani et al. Reference Gilani, Razavi and Azad2014; Jeong and Lee Reference Jeong and Lee2018; Singh et al. Reference Singh, Pathak and Sharma2018; Todd et al. Reference Todd, Gepp and Richards2019). Evidence suggests that end-of-life decision-making protocols were associated with increased utilization of comfort-focused treatments in Burn ICUs (Cook et al. Reference Cook, Langston and Jaramillo2020) and proportionate care (Abdelrahman et al. Reference Abdelrahman, Elmasry and Fredrikson2018; Collins et al. Reference Collins, Cato and Albers2013). Anticipating the identification and referral of patients in ICUs who have PC needs and require care planning can optimize end-of-life care and avoid in-hospital death (Gao et al. Reference Gao, Ho and Verne2013; Sierra Zúñiga et al. Reference Sierra Zúñiga, Castro Delgado and Merchán-Galvis2016).

Repeated exposure to death and grief may lead health-care professionals to occupational stress and burnout (Shorter and Stayt Reference Shorter and Stayt2010; Velarde-Garcia et al. Reference Velarde-Garcia, Luengo-Gonzalez and Gonzalez-Hervias2016). These work-related problems can cause emotional disengagement, causing a negative impact on patients and families’ quality of life (Shorter and Stayt Reference Shorter and Stayt2010). Preventive measures, such as ICU working groups, improving communication and shared decision-making during end-of-life care, preventing and managing conflicts within the team, and also integrating a PC approach in ICUs should be used (Le Gall et al. Reference Le Gall, Azoulay and Embriaco2011; Martins Pereira et al. Reference Martins Pereira, Teixeira and Carvalho2016; Moon and Kim Reference Moon and Kim2015). Integrating PC can foster the discussion of care goals within the multidisciplinary team, helping patients, families, and professionals to better cope with and manage end-of-life issues (Coffey et al. Reference Coffey, Everett and Miller2011).

End-of-life care after making end-of-life decisions (e.g., withdrawing life-sustaining treatments) remains under-analyzed and needs further research (Martins Pereira et al. Reference Martins Pereira, Fradique and Hernandez-Marrero2018; Penders et al. Reference Penders, Bopp and Zellweger2020). Multiple predisposing factors and circumstances may shape the nature of care of the dying and the grief process of their loved ones (Shorter and Stayt Reference Shorter and Stayt2010).

A recent systematic review concluded that integrating PC in Burn ICUs improves patients’ comfort, decision-making processes, and family care (Ribeiro et al. Reference Ribeiro, Martins Pereira and Gomes2019). However, it seems to be mostly confined to the end-of-life period, suggesting that it is not fully integrated in the care process (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2019). Although this integration is perceived as an opportunity to improve end-of-life care and the dying and death processes, it is still underutilized and under-protocolized (Lilley et al. Reference Lilley, Lee and Scott2018), warranting further research.

Objectives

The objective of this study is to review, appraise, and synthesize the existing evidence about end-of-life in Burn ICUs.

Methods

A systematically conducted scoping review was performed as the general purpose was to identify and map the available evidence about end-of-life care in Burn ICUs (Munn et al. Reference Munn, Peters and Stern2018). We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) as reporting guideline (Moher et al. Reference Moher, Liberati and Tetzlaff2009; Tricco et al. Reference Tricco, Lillie and Zarin2018) and followed Arksey and O’Malley (Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005) as a methodological framework, with the refinements proposed by Levac et al. (Reference Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien2010). This framework is particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed. It may also be undertaken as an exercise to summarize and disseminate research findings, identify research gaps, and make recommendations for further research (Arksey and O’Malley Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005; Khalil et al. Reference Khalil, Peters and Godfrey2016; Levac et al. Reference Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien2010; Munn et al. Reference Munn, Peters and Stern2018; Peters et al. Reference Peters, Godfrey and Khalil2015, Reference Peters, Marnie and Colquhoun2021a, Reference Peters, Marnie and Tricco2021b).

Search strategy

Searches were performed in 3 databases, as recommended by the Joanne Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers’ Manual (JBI 2015), as follows: PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO. MeSH terms or other possible terms related to the following 3 core sets/dimensions were used: Phenomenon of interest – end-of-life, dying, and death; Patient group – burned patients; and Context – (Burn) ICUs. The strategies were adapted as necessary for each database. No limit was placed on the year of publication or language of published articles. Thus, any document from inception until July 2020 was eligible for selection. Searches were updated in September 2021. Full search strategies and histories are provided in the Appendix.

Eligibility criteria

Population: Articles related to end-of-life for patients aged 18 and above, in Burn ICUs in English, Spanish, German, or Portuguese.

Intervention: Articles describing characteristics or care interventions in patients dying in Burn ICUs.

Comparator: No comparator was considered.

Outcome: The description of end-of-life in Burn ICUs.

Design: All research designs and types of articles were considered, except for systematic reviews.

Study selection

Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were independently screened for relevance by 2 reviewers (A.F.R. and S.M.P.). Relevant publications, potentially eligible for inclusion, were read in full-text by 2 researchers (A.F.R. and S.M.P.), summarized, and discussed with a third researcher (P.H.-M.). Disagreements were resolved by discussion until reaching consensus among these 3 researchers (A.F.R., S.M.P., and P.H.-M.). Summary tables were presented to the other member of the team (R.N.). Figure 1 illustrates the PRISMA-ScR flowchart (Page et al. Reference Page, McKenzie and Bossuyt2021; Tricco et al. Reference Tricco, Lillie and Zarin2018). Endnote X9 was used to remove duplicates and for reference management.

Fig. 1. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flowchart.

Quality assessment

Although quality assessment is not a required element of a scoping review (Arksey and O’Malley Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005; Brien et al. Reference Brien, Lorenzetti and Lewis2010), as our review has implications for both clinical practice and service organization (JBI 2015; Kazi et al. Reference Kazi, Chowdhury and Chowdhury2021) we appraised the methodological quality of the articles included in the analysis using Hawker et al. (Reference Hawker, Payne and Kerr2002)’s criteria.

Data analysis and synthesis

Data were independently extracted from eligible papers by 3 researchers (A.F.R., S.M.P., and P.H.-M.) using structured data forms purposively developed for this study. These forms were based on and adapted from PICOD’s tool (Eriksen and Frandsen Reference Eriksen and Frandsen2018; Methley et al. Reference Methley, Campbell and Chew-Graham2014): P = Participants (burned patients), I = Phenomena of interest (end-of-life, dying, and death), C = Context (Burn ICUs), O = Outcomes (end-of-life care), D = Design (all research designs, except systematic reviews, policy reports, or case reports). The forms also included the name of the authors, country, and methodological quality. A narrative and thematic synthesis was performed. First, we performed a textual narrative synthesis, systematizing and reporting on study characteristics, context, quality, and findings, using the scope, differences, and similarities among included articles. Second, a thematic synthesis, in which we grouped and aggregated data into themes, was conducted. No themes were defined a priori. The following key themes emerged from the analysis: (i) characteristics of the end-of-life in Burn ICUs, including end-of-life decisions, decision-making processes, causes of death, and trajectories of death; (ii) symptom control at the end-of-life in Burn ICUs focusing on patients’ comfort; and (iii) concepts, models, and designs of the care provided to burned patients at the end-of-life, mainly care approaches, provision of care, and PC. Table 1 synthesizes the main findings aligned with Arksey and O’Malley (Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005)’s framework.

Table 1. Operationalization of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework in this scoping review

Results

Database searches retrieved a total of 16,287 articles; 35 articles were full-text assessed for eligibility. Eighteen articles were included in our review, as illustrated in the PRISMA-ScR flowchart (Figure 1).

Description of the articles included for analysis and synthesis

Three main themes were identified: (i) characteristics of the end-of-life care in Burn ICUs; (ii) symptom control at the end-of-life in Burn ICUs; and (iii) concepts, models, and designs of the care provided. Other subthemes that emerged within these main topics were comfort care in critically ill burned patients, end-of-life decisions, and trajectories to death in patients with burn injuries. Figure 2 illustrates and synthesizes these themes and subthemes, relating them to main stakeholders.

Fig. 2. Experiencing end-of-life in burn intensive care units: synthesis of themes and subthemes.

One of the included articles studied the use of a care pathway, which was a valid tool, improving the quality of end-of-life care (Hemington-Gorse et al. Reference Hemington-Gorse, Clover and Macdonald2011). It was based on the Liverpool Care Pathway, which is an evidence-based framework of care for the dying patient, providing guidance on comfort measures, discontinuation of inappropriate interventions, anticipatory prescribing, holistic care, and bereavement care (Al-Benna Reference Al-Benna2013).

End-of-life decision-making processes were studied in 6 of the selected articles. In 5 of them, retrospective case notes reviews were undertaken, retrieving information from 8,639 patients whose care provision required end-of-life decision-making sustained in burn severity and associated comorbidities (Bartley et al. Reference Bartley, Atwell and Cairns2019; Hemington-Gorse et al. Reference Hemington-Gorse, Clover and Macdonald2011; Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011; Partain et al. Reference Partain, Subramanian and Hodgman2016; Pham et al. Reference Pham, Andrew Otto and Bradley Kramer2012). In another article, an electronic survey was randomly applied to burn specialists from several countries participating in 2 scientific events (Metaxa and Lavrentieva Reference Metaxa and Lavrentieva2015). Their main concerns in the decision-making processes were the severity of burns, no response to treatment, and poor quality of life.

Another study considered 6,212 cases reported from regional and national Burn Repository databases in the USA. The majority of burn deaths had a specific burn pattern, allowing the distinction and characterization of 4 types of trajectories (Swanson et al. Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013). Mortality and acute burden were also studied (Weng et al. Reference Weng, Lee and Wei2019). Two studies analyzed 7,020 deaths, finding that multiple organ failure was the most common cause of death among burned patients (Bloemsma et al. Reference Bloemsma, Dokter and Boxma2008; Dokter et al. Reference Dokter, Felix and Pieta Krijnen2015). To improve the approach for the critically burned patients’ families, other studies evaluated the effect of training and early PC consultation programs applied to multidisciplinary teams from trauma/Burn ICUs and implemented gold standards for comfort care for burn patients (Carmichael et al. Reference Carmichael, Brackett and Scott2021a, Reference Carmichael, Mather and Smith2021b; Wessman et al. Reference Wessman, Sona and Schallom2017; Zack-Williams et al. Reference Zack-Williams, Gurusinghe and Tridente2021).

Finally, 2 articles explored, qualitatively, the experiences of professionals and relatives of patients who were cared in Burn ICUs at the end-of-life. These studies highlight the experiences of “hanging in balance” and managing uncertainty, suggesting the need for a better integration of PC in Burn ICUs (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Agbeko2021a, Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2021b).

A summary of the characteristics of the articles included in our analysis and synthesis is presented in Table 2. To better understand end-of-life experiences and care in Burn ICUs, we provide an overview of the content of these articles focusing on the preparation for the end-of-life, provision of end-of-life care, and follow-up for families/professional caregivers (Table 3). Table 4 synthesizes the key themes and subthemes about the end-of-life in Burn ICUs.

Table 2. Characteristics of the articles (n = 18) included for analysis

Table 3. Overview of the experiences related to the end-of-life in burn intensive care units

Table 4. Synthesis of the key themes and subthemes about the end-of-life in burn intensive care units

a Step (iv) in Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, as reported in Table 1.

What are the main characteristics of the end-of-life and end-of-life care in Burn ICUs?

End-of-life care and decisions

Forgoing (i.e., withdrawing/withholding) treatment is the most frequent decision made in Burn ICUs. Withdrawing treatment is the deliberate cessation of life-sustaining treatment, despite the awareness that this might lead to the patient’s death; withholding treatment consists of the decision to not give a life-sustaining treatment. This conceptual clarification was considered to be important as well as do-not-attempt to resuscitate orders (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011; Metaxa and Lavrentieva Reference Metaxa and Lavrentieva2015).

It is vital to understand decision-making rationales and provide quality and proportionate care at the end-of-life (Swanson et al. Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013). Encouraging new developments (e.g., better understanding of fluid creep, computer-assisted decision support of fluid resuscitation, and rescue therapies) may improve early end-of-life care, defined as the terminal care provided for patients with early rapid decline of their health status, due to burn shock, and also for those with early organ failure after Burn ICU admission, mainly with sepsis or multiple organ failure (Swanson et al. Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013).

The main reasons to decide between withholding and withdrawing treatment were severity of burns (78%), no response to the treatment (68%), and high probability of dying (68%) (Metaxa and Lavrentieva Reference Metaxa and Lavrentieva2015). The most significant aspects for making end-of-life decisions in burned patients were the likelihood of returning to independent living (Pham et al. Reference Pham, Andrew Otto and Bradley Kramer2012) and, for patients aged under 65 years, the size/severity of their burns, and, in older patients, the presence of comorbidities (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011).

Physicians in Burn ICUs often experience reluctance to forgo life-sustaining therapies (Metaxa and Lavrentieva Reference Metaxa and Lavrentieva2015), which may delay comfort care (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Agbeko2021a). One study reported that 73% of the participant clinicians considered withholding and withdrawing decisions as being ethically distinct; 30% of these physicians considered that they would forgo (i.e., withhold/withdraw) the treatment of conscious patients without discussing it with their families (Metaxa and Lavrentieva Reference Metaxa and Lavrentieva2015). The same study found that nurses participated in less than 50% of end-of-life decisions and 81% of the intensivists would not forgo treatment if patients’ families held a different opinion. When forgoing treatment decisions were made, 42% of the physicians would choose to withhold treatment, 37% to withdraw, and 22% neither of the options, but would apply do-not-attempt-to-resuscitate orders (Metaxa and Lavrentieva Reference Metaxa and Lavrentieva2015). Implementing a protocolized withdrawal procedure allowed to consistently improve the palliation of end-of-life symptoms without hastening death (Pham et al. Reference Pham, Andrew Otto and Bradley Kramer2012).

Main causes of death and end-of-life trajectories

The most common comorbidities of burn patients were circulatory and endocrine conditions (Dokter et al. Reference Dokter, Felix and Pieta Krijnen2015). The most common causes of death were multiple organ failure (Bloemsma et al. Reference Bloemsma, Dokter and Boxma2008; Dokter et al. Reference Dokter, Felix and Pieta Krijnen2015; Kallinen et al. Reference Kallinen, Maisniemi and Bohling2012; Swanson et al. Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013), burn shock (36%), sepsis or multi-organ failure (28%), and lung injuries (14%) (Swanson et al. Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013). Different typical pathways were also identified for burn-related deaths: (i) most patients with burn injuries followed a pattern of steady deterioration and died in an early rapid decline regardless of age, mainly due to burn shock (62%); (ii) sepsis/multi-organ failure were the main causes for early organ failures that lead to patients’ deaths; (iii) patients who were stable, until they experienced myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolus and died of late sudden death; and (iv) late terminal illness decline trajectory in patients that initially tolerated resuscitation, but developed subsequent complications, as wound infections or even pneumonia, urging a downward trajectory to death that lasted over than 24 h.

Patients with more severe injuries had an early decision for comfort care, experienced a shorter time to death, and fewer interventions, such as surgeries (Bartley et al. Reference Bartley, Atwell and Cairns2019; Partain et al. Reference Partain, Subramanian and Hodgman2016). Nevertheless, as highlighted by family members and professionals, end-of-life trajectories were characterized by uncertainties in the period preceding death. Experiencing the end-of-life trajectory of a loved one with severe burns in a Burn ICU was perceived as journeying through uncertainty, ebbing away, and coming to terms with a loss (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2021b).

How is symptom control provided at the end-of-life in Burn ICUs?

Symptom control and patients’ comfort

Symptom control is an integrated part of care provision in Burn ICUs. One article highlighted that a large proportion of patients had no comprehensive documentation of the care they received at the end-of-life (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011). While there are multiple references to comfort care, there is no mention of specific care interventions (Bartley et al. Reference Bartley, Atwell and Cairns2019; Swanson et al. Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013; Wessman et al. Reference Wessman, Sona and Schallom2017). Using a PC framework and approach improves patients’ comfort and reduces symptom burden. It also allows highlighting areas where the goals of care have not been attained (e.g., symptoms requiring attention and specific clinical interventions) (Hemington-Gorse et al. Reference Hemington-Gorse, Clover and Macdonald2011). Participants from one study mentioned pain as a physical need, noting how loneliness due to isolation could exacerbate pain. Deteriorating conditions were also noted to be unable to tolerate oral feeding leading to emaciation, and some patients became unconscious with breathing difficulties (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Agbeko2021a).

What are the concepts, models, and designs of care provision at the end-of-life in Burn ICUs?

Care approaches

Most burned patients at the end-of-life in Burn ICUs show early and repeated instability, although a potentially protracted course. More than three-quarters of burn deaths are attributable to failure or significant decompensation beginning in the resuscitation phase (Swanson et al. Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013). The Injury Severity Score and the Abbreviated Burn Severity Score are used to calculate the acuity of multiple organ systems, while the Charlson Comorbidities Index is used to evaluate the burden of preexisting comorbidities for patients in Burn ICUs (Bartley et al. Reference Bartley, Atwell and Cairns2019; Kallinen et al. Reference Kallinen, Maisniemi and Bohling2012; Swanson et al. Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013).

In one study, most burns (68%) were due to flames. The average total body surface burned area was 53% in patients under 65 years of age, compared to 17% in patients over 65 years. In total, 96% of the patients over 65 years had significant comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, epilepsy, alcoholism, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011).

The Burn Modified Liverpool Care Pathway is a care model, with positive results for patients, their relatives, and teams (Hemington-Gorse et al. Reference Hemington-Gorse, Clover and Macdonald2011). This pathway was easy to adhere to and well received. Training/educational programs with multiple inputs about end-of-life care are used to improve health care, order sets, and resources to support end-of-life care in Burn ICUs (Wessman et al. Reference Wessman, Sona and Schallom2017).

Provision of care

Decision-making processes affect care. Swanson et al. (Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013) suggested that efforts should concern 2 divergent aims: first, an early institution of comfort care, the most humane option in massive injuries, and a better understanding of decision-making rationales and high-quality end-of-life care; second, difficult resuscitations, encouraging developments that may improve early care, such as a better understanding of fluid creep, computer-assisted decision support for fluid resuscitation, and rescue therapies.

How professionals are organized in Burn ICUs may also play a relevant role in quality of care. A US survey found that more than 60% of the participating hospitals had a nurse–patients ratio of 1:2 or less, which was associated with reduced incidence of withholding/withdrawing treatment (Metaxa and Lavrentieva Reference Metaxa and Lavrentieva2015). Structural aspects may also be identified. In one study, all surgeries were performed in the burn operating room, and burned patients in the ICUs were cared for in a discrete area of the central unit. Two teams were involved in the process of care: the burns team (i.e., specialists in burn treatment) and the team of intensivists and anesthetists (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011). Multidisciplinary teams were composed of a surgeon, a burns anesthetist, a senior nursing staff, and a therapist (Hemington-Gorse et al. Reference Hemington-Gorse, Clover and Macdonald2011). PC teams were not involved in the care of most of these patients.

Besides being difficult to make, end-of-life decisions may not have happened on time. Out of the 63 patients participating in one study, only 3 had an input from the PC team (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011).

Palliative care

PC was rarely involved in end-of-life care in Burn ICUs. Four studies highlighted the input of a PC team, but for a minority of patients (Carmichael et al. Reference Carmichael, Brackett and Scott2021a, Reference Carmichael, Mather and Smith2021b; Dokter et al. Reference Dokter, Felix and Pieta Krijnen2015; Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011). Qualitative studies with professionals and family members emphasized that PC should come alongside active treatment for severely burned (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Agbeko2021a, Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2021b), focusing on communication, symptom management, and post-bereavement support for relatives and staff (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2019, Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Agbeko2021a, Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2021b). PC may have the benefit of attaining person and family-centered care at the end-of-life and needs to be integrated in Burn ICUs to ensure that persons whose injuries are deemed unsurvivable and their families receive adequate support (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2021b).

Discussion

This scoping review shows the paucity of studies focusing on end-of-life care in Burn ICUs. Included articles were heterogeneous and focused mostly on clinical records/databases or professionals’ (physicians) perspectives. The main findings suggest the presence of different trajectories to death in patients with burn injuries. Most deaths in Burn ICUs are preceded by end-of-life decisions. The complexity of making end-of-life decisions and inherent decision-making processes is also explored. It seems that symptom control in critically ill burned patients facing the end-of-life in Burn ICUs has received little attention. Specialist PC was rarely involved in end-of-life care in these units.

Deaths in Burn ICUs are often preceded by end-of-life decisions, namely forgoing treatment and do-not-attempt to resuscitate. Nevertheless, there is a need to further improve decision-making processes, increasing the discussion about the goals of care with patients, family members, and even with other team members (e.g., nurses), and managing uncertainty.

End-of-life care is a major step in the care provided to critically ill burned patients in Burn ICUs and their families. It requires a specific set of competencies to enable improved quality of life, comfort, and optimum family support. Still, end-of-life care in Burn ICUs is often neglected, and there is a scarcity of studies on this specific topic.

Communication with critically ill burned patients and their families is difficult for professionals working in Burn ICUs. Often, professionals feel unprepared to face end-of-life situations. Communication obstacles are mostly related to family engagement, information exchange, process transparency, and standardization for both clinicians and family members in Burn ICUs (Fanning et al. Reference Fanning, Farkas and DeWitt2017). There is a long way still to improve communication, particularly for patients to express their end-of-life wishes. Among teams, roles need to be better clarified, and guidelines should be developed alongside competencies and changes in the organizational and physical environment (Bernacki et al. Reference Bernacki and Block2014; Bergenholtz et al. Reference Bergenholtz, Timm and Missel2019).

Communication is a key element to manage decisions, particularly those surrounded by uncertainty (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2021b, Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2019). These decisions are based on clinical knowledge, previous experiences, and personal beliefs (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011). Improving end-of-life care is part of high-quality intensive care (Curtis et al. Reference Curtis, Patrick and Shannon2001; Gramling et al. Reference Gramling, Sanders and Ladwig2015), particularly in Burn ICUs. Patient-centered care approaches with shared decision-making processes (Elwyn et al. Reference Elwyn, Dehlendorf and Epstein2014) featured, for example, by family conferences can improve the quality of communication between family members and teams (Curtis et al. Reference Curtis, Patrick and Shannon2001). Family satisfaction increases when they are involved in the process associated with the withdrawal of life support (Gries et al. Reference Gries, Curtis and Wall2008).

End-of-life decision-making is particularly challenging (Emanuel and Scandrett Reference Emanuel and Scandrett2010). Specifically, decisions to forgo (i.e., withhold/withdraw) life-sustaining treatments in ICUs are difficult. A large heterogeneity is observed worldwide with respect to making decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatments in ICUs (Lobo et al. Reference Lobo, De Simoni and Jakob2017; Sprung et al. Reference Sprung, Ricou and Hartog2019). Declining to provide a treatment that is medically inappropriate or futile is ethically sound (Botti and Vaccari Reference Botti and Vaccari2019; Wilkinson and Savulescu Reference Wilkinson and Savulescu2011). Despite the expectation that patients would die sooner if invasive interventions were forgone, no such association was found (Ramazzotti et al. Reference Ramazzotti, Clardy and Celi2019).

Early comfort care may be the most humane option for massive burn injuries, requiring a better understanding of both decision-making rationales and processes, and ways to promote high-quality end-of-life care (Bartley et al. Reference Bartley, Atwell and Cairns2019; Swanson et al. Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013; Wessman et al. Reference Wessman, Sona and Schallom2017). It is paramount to ensure person-centered care approaches, involving multidisciplinary teams in end-of-life decision-making processes.

A large proportion of patients in Burn ICUs had no comprehensive documentation of the care they received at the end-of-life (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011). Indeed, only one study reported effective symptom control at the end-of-life (Hemington-Gorse et al. Reference Hemington-Gorse, Clover and Macdonald2011). Interventions to manage pain, agitation, breathlessness, mouth problems, secretions, nausea, vomiting, wound care, adequate use of medication, psychological support, and family support are core elements and should be implemented to ensure comfort for critically ill burned patients at the end-of-life.

Based on this review, it seems that PC is suboptimal in Burn ICUs. Only 4 studies referred to the involvement of PC in end-of-life care provided to a very small number of severely burned dying patients (Carmichael et al. Reference Carmichael, Brackett and Scott2021a, Reference Carmichael, Mather and Smith2021b; Dokter et al. Reference Dokter, Felix and Pieta Krijnen2015; Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011). Most of these studies were quality improvement initiatives. Studies show that PC teams are still not involved in clinical decisions, definition of goals, and end-of-life care in Burn ICUs (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011). Although PC is applicable in burn care, its current role is mostly confined to the end-of-life, suggesting that it is not fully integrated in the care process (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2019). PC specialists and burn surgeons perceive that end-of-life discussions, particularly those concerning goals of care, should occur within the first 72 h of admission (Carmichael et al. Reference Carmichael, Brackett and Scott2021a, Reference Carmichael, Mather and Smith2021b; Cunningham et al. Reference Cunningham, Scielzo and Nakonezny2018). This shows the need for an early identification of PC needs, timely PC referrals, and identification and standardization of triggers for PC referrals.

Well-developed guidelines and protocols exist to promote the appropriate integration of PC in other specialties, including intensive care (Ismail et al. Reference Ismail, Long and Moiemen2011). Yet, they do not directly transfer to the unique needs of critically burned patients and, therefore, are difficult to implement in Burn ICUs. Identifying, clarifying, and prioritizing patients’ goals are paramount to develop patient-centered care processes and can provide the rationale for timely PC referral (Gramling et al. Reference Gramling, Sanders and Ladwig2015), as suggested for other health-care settings (Hui et al. Reference Hui, Hannon and Zimmermann2018, Reference Hui, Heung and Bruera2022). Evidence shows that PC consultation teams help to meet patients’ goals of care, wishes, and preferences (Quill et al. Reference Quill, Norton and Shah2006). The early integration of PC is associated with improved quality of life and survival (Mittmann et al. Reference Mittmann, Liu and MacKinnon2020). Nevertheless, although the integration of PC in Burn ICUs was mostly implemented to improve end-of-life care, no distinction was made concerning early and late deaths in Burn ICUs. As pinpointed by Hui et al. (Reference Hui, Hannon and Zimmermann2018, Reference Hui, Heung and Bruera2022) in the context of cancer care, more than focusing on “early PC integration” it is paramount to ensure “timely PC,” which is a systematic process to identify patients with high supportive care needs and to refer these individuals to specialist PC in a timely manner based on standardized referral criteria.

Integrating PC in Burn ICUs is challenging but has shown to benefit patients, families, and professionals. It is paramount to ensure that decisions concerning the goals of care meet patients’ physical, psychological, social, existential, and spiritual needs, enabling the best outcomes for patients, families, and teams, regardless of survival rates (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2019, Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Agbeko2021a, Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2021b; Berlin Reference Berlin2017; Hemington-Gorse et al. Reference Hemington-Gorse, Clover and Macdonald2011). Health-care systems need to invest as much effort on quality and integrated end-of-life care as they do in maintaining the population alive and free from prominent, alarming diseases (Mitchell Reference Mitchell2017).

Although there is no worldwide consensus on the definition of PC (De Lima and Radbruch Reference De Lima and Radbruch2018; Knaul et al. Reference Knaul, Farmer and Krakauer2018), it is recognized that PC can contribute to ensure the best quality of life for patients and their families, particularly at the end-of-life (Berlin Reference Berlin2017; Mittmann et al. Reference Mittmann, Liu and MacKinnon2020; Payne et al. Reference Payne, Harding and Williams2022). As most of the deaths in Burn ICUs are preceded by a decision to forgo life-sustaining treatments, thus resulting in short periods of time survival, attending Burn ICU professionals might perceive it as impossible to timely refer these patients to PC. Another potential reason could be that professionals working in Burn ICUs consider that they already provide adequate comfort measures and care to dying burned patients, therefore not requiring any additional support from specialized PC teams. Indeed, evidence shows that specialized PC is not initiated in almost half of the people for whom it could be beneficial, most frequently because physicians deem regular caregivers to be sufficiently skilled in addressing PC needs (Beernaert et al. Reference Beernaert, Deliens and Pardon2015).

Predefining trajectories in dying and death for patients in Burn ICUs might be crucial to anticipate and better identify patients and families’ needs. Swanson et al. (Reference Swanson, Otto and Gibran2013) present 4 death trajectories in patients with burn injuries. Despite the perceived uncertainty of end-of-life trajectories in Burn ICUs (Bayuo et al. Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Harding2019, Reference Bayuo, Bristowe and Agbeko2021a), this is of relevance. Understanding burns’ physiopathology may help to better identify triggers for PC referral, integrating PC in these patients’ care pathways. Further research should focus on the identification of these triggers for PC referral and admission, and on the outcomes resulting from integrating PC in the care processes and decisions of severely burned patients.

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this review is its novelty. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scoping review addressing end-of-life care and decisions in Burn ICUs. The systematic approach and methodological framework of this scoping review bring robustness to the findings. Nevertheless, our review is not without limitations. Due to the limited number of available studies on this topic and heterogeneity of the information provided (10 articles were based on patients’ records, 2 were on online surveys with professionals, 2 were quality improvement initiatives, 2 were qualitative interview studies, 2 were letters to the editor commenting on previous studies), caution is needed in the interpretation of our findings. Although we thoroughly followed the steps defined by Arksey and O’Malley (Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005), we did not perform the consultation exercise. This is an additional optional and parallel step involving key stakeholders to inform and validate study findings. As this review is part of a larger study on the integration of PC in Burn ICUs, this step will be undertaken when conducting interviews and focus groups with relevant stakeholders.

Conclusions

End-of-life care is paramount in the care provided to critically ill burned patients who are dying and their families. It requires specific competencies to enable improved quality of life, comfort, and family support. Nonetheless, end-of-life care in Burn ICUs is rarely studied and characterized by complexity and uncertainty. This review suggests that deaths in Burn ICUs are often preceded by end-of-life decisions, namely forgoing treatment and do-not-attempt to resuscitate. Different trajectories to death were identified and can be considered to develop triggers for timely PC referrals in Burn ICUs. Symptom control was not described in detail. PC was rarely involved in end-of-life care and decision-making processes.

Our work highlights the need for the early integration of PC and high-quality end-of-life care in the trajectories of critically burned patients. It also leads to a better understanding of dying and death in Burn ICUs. In fact, professionals and guidelines should consistently claim quality end-of-life care to be as important as life-sustaining care.

Further research is needed to (i) complete the additional optional step of this scoping review and involve key stakeholders to inform and validate study findings, (ii) identify triggers for PC referral in Burn ICUs, and (iii) study the best way to foster the timely integration of PC in the care provided to burned patients dying in Burn ICUs.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951522001389.

Acknowledgments

Sandra Martins Pereira is Principal Investigator funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under the Scientific Employment Stimulus. CEGE – Research Center in Management and Economics receives financial support from FCT through project UIDB/00731/2020.

Author contributions

R.N. and P.H.-M. are equal last authors of this article.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare, or disclosure of funding received for this investigation.

References

Abdelrahman, I, Elmasry, M, Fredrikson, M, et al. (2018) Validation of the burn intervention score in a National Burn Centre. Burns 44, 11591166. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2018.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AbdelWahab, ME, Sadaka, MS, Elbana, EA, et al. (2018) Evaluation of prognostic factors affecting lenght of stay in hospital and mortality rates in acute burn patients. Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters 31, 8388. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2018.02.001Google ScholarPubMed
Al-Benna, S (2013) Burn care and the Liverpool Care Pathway. Burns 39, 1028. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2013.01.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arksey, H and O’Malley, L (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice 8, 1932. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartley, CN, Atwell, K, Cairns, B, et al. (2019) Predictors of withdrawal of life support after burn injury. Burns 45, 322327. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2018.10.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayuo, J, Bristowe, K, Harding, R, et al. (2019) The role of palliative care in burns: A scoping review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 59(5), 10891110. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.11.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayuo, J, Bristowe, K, Agbeko, AE, et al. (2021a) “Managing uncertainty”: Experiences of family members of burn patients from injury occurrence to the end-of-life period. Burns 47(7), 16471655. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2021.02.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayuo, J, Bristowe, K, Harding, R, et al. (2021b) “Hanging in a balance”: A qualitative study exploring clinicians’ experiences of providing care at the end of life in the burn unit. Palliative Medicine 35, 417425. doi:10.1177/0269216320972289CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beernaert, K, Deliens, L, Pardon, K, et al. (2015) What are physicians’ reasons for not referring people with life-limiting illnesses to specialist palliative care services? A nationwide survey. PLoS One 10, . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergenholtz, H, Timm, HU and Missel, M (2019) Talking about end of life in general palliative care – What’s going on? A qualitative study on end-of-life conversations in an acute care hospital in Denmark. BMC Palliative Care 18, 62. doi:10.1186/s12904-019-0448-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, A (2017) Goals of care and end of life in the ICU. Surgical Clinics of North America 97, 12751290. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2017.07.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernacki, RE, Block, SD and Force American College of Physicians High Value Care Task (2014) Communication about serious illness care goals: A review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Internal Medicine 174, 19942003. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloemsma, GC, Dokter, J, Boxma, H, et al. (2008) Mortality and causes of death in a burn centre. Burns 34, 11031107. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2008.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botti, C and Vaccari, A (2019) End-of-life decision-making and advance care directives in Italy. A report and moral appraisal of recent legal provisions. Bioethics 33, 842848.10.1111/bioe.12615CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, C, Weaver, J and Brasel, K (2010) Addressing access to palliative care services in the surgical intensive care unit. Surgery 147, 871877. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2009.11.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brien, SE, Lorenzetti, DL, Lewis, S, et al. (2010) Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implementation Science 5, 2.10.1186/1748-5908-5-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brusselaers, N, Monstrey, S, Vogelaers, D, et al. (2010) Severe burn injury in Europe: A systematic review of the incidence, etiology, morbidity, and mortality. Critical Care 14, . doi:10.1186/cc9300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burns, SM, Fisher, C, Earven Tribble, SS, et al. (2010) Multifactor clinical score and outcome of mechanical ventilation weaning trials: Burns Wean Assessment Program. American Journal of Critical Care 19, 431439. doi:10.4037/ajcc2010273CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmichael, H, Brackett, H, Scott, MC, et al. (2021a) Early palliative care consultation in the burn unit: A quality improvement initiative to increase utilization. Journal of Burn Care & Research 42(6), 1128–1135. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irab140CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmichael, H, Mather, SE, Smith, TM, et al. (2021b) 102 early palliative care consultation in the burn unit: Increasing utilization and areas for improvement. Journal of Burn Care & Research 42, S69S70. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irab032.106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffey, R, Everett, S, Miller, S, et al. (2011) End of life in the burn/trauma unit: A nursing perspective. International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science 1, 129131. doi:10.4103/2229-5151.84799CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen-Mansfield, J, Skornick-Bouchbinder, M and Brill, S (2018) Trajectories of end of life: A systematic review. Journal of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 73, 564572. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbx093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, SA, Cato, K, Albers, D, et al. (2013) Relationship between nursing documentation and patients’ mortality. American Journal of Critical Care 22, 306313. doi:10.4037/ajcc2013426CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, AC, Langston, JA, Jaramillo, JD, et al. (2020) Opportunities for palliative care in patients with burn injury-a systematic review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 59, 916916. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.11.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, HB, Scielzo, SA, Nakonezny, PA, et al. (2018) Burn surgeon and palliative care physician attitudes regarding goals of care delineation for burned geriatric patients. Journal of Burn Care & Research 39(6), 10001005. doi:10.1093/jbcr/iry027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, JR, Patrick, DL, Shannon, SE, et al. (2001) The family conference as a focus to improve communication about end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: Opportunities for improvement. Critical Care Medicine 29, N26N33.10.1097/00003246-200102001-00006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Lima, L and Radbruch, L (2018) The International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care: Advancing hospice and palliative care worldwide. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 55, S96S103. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.03.023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dokter, J, Felix, M, Pieta Krijnen, JF, et al. (2015) Mortality and causes of death of Dutch burn patients during the period 2006–2011. Burns 41, 235240. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2014.10.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G, Dehlendorf, C, Epstein, RM, et al. (2014) Shared decision making and motivational interviewing: Achieving patient-centered care across the spectrum of health care problems. Annals of Family Medicine 12, 270275. doi:10.1370/afm.1615CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emanuel, L and Scandrett, KG (2010) Decisions at the end of life: Have we come of age? BMC Medicine 8, 57. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksen, MB and Frandsen, TF (2018) The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: A systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association 106, 420431. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.345CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanning, JB, Farkas, CM, DeWitt, PM, et al. (2017) Obstacles to shared expectations in a burn intensive care unit. Qualitative Health Research 27, 351362. doi:10.1177/1049732315616619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbinake, NA, Ohandza, CS, Fai, KN, et al. (2020) Mortality analysis of burns in a developing country: A CAMEROONIAN experience. BMC Public Health 20, 6. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09372-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, W, Ho, YK, Verne, J, et al. (2013) Changing patterns in place of cancer death in England: A population-based study. PLOS Medicine 10, . doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001410CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilani, MT, Razavi, M and Azad, AM (2014) A comparison of Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation III scoring system in predicting mortality and length of stay at surgical intensive care unit. Nigerian Medical Journal 55, 144147. doi:10.4103/0300-1652.129651CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gramling, R, Sanders, M, Ladwig, S, et al. (2015) Goal communication in palliative care decision-making consultations. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 50, 701706. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.05.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, CJ, Curtis, JR, Wall, RJ et al. (2008) Family member satisfaction with end-of-life decision making in the ICU. Chest 133, 704712. doi:10.1378/chest.07-1773CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawker, S, Payne, S, Kerr, C, et al. (2002) Appraising the evidence: Reviewing disparate data systematically. Qualitative Health Research 12, 12841299. doi:10.1177/1049732302238251CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemington-Gorse, SJ, Clover, AJ, Macdonald, C, et al. (2011) Comfort care in burns: The Burn Modified Liverpool Care Pathway (BM-LCP). Burns 37, 981985. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2011.03.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higginson, IJ, Evans, CJ, Grande, G et al. (2013a) Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: The MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews. BMC Medicine 11, 111. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higginson, IJ, Koffman, J, Hopkins, P, et al. (2013b) Development and evaluation of the feasibility and effects on staff, patients, and families of a new tool, the Psychosocial Assessment and Communication Evaluation (PACE), to improve communication and palliative care in intensive care and during clinical uncertainty. BMC Medicine 11, 213.10.1186/1741-7015-11-213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hua, MS, Li, GH, Blinderman, CD, et al. (2014) Estimates of the need for palliative care consultation across United States intensive care units using a trigger-based model. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 189, 428436. doi:10.1164/rccm.201307-1229OCCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hui, D, Hannon, BL, Zimmermann, C, et al. (2018) Improving patient and caregiver outcomes in oncology: Team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 68, 356376. doi:10.3322/caac.21490Google ScholarPubMed
Hui, D, Heung, Y and Bruera, E (2022) Timely palliative care: Personalizing the process of referral. Cancers (Basel) 14(4), 1047. doi:10.3390/cancers14041047CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ismail, A, Long, J, Moiemen, N, et al. (2011) End of life decisions and care of the adult burn patient. Burns 37, 288293. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2010.08.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JBI (2015) The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute.Google Scholar
Jeong, ES and Lee, K (2018) Clinical application of modified burns Wean Assessment Program scores at first spontaneous breathing trial in weaning patients from mechanical ventilation. Acute and Critical Care 33, 260268. doi:10.4266/acc.2018.00276CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallinen, O, Maisniemi, K, Bohling, T, et al. (2012) Multiple organ failure as a cause of death in patients with severe burns. Journal of Burn Care & Research 33, 206211. doi:10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182331e73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamolz, Lars-Peter (2010) Burns: Learning from the past in order to be fit for the future. Critical Care (London, England) 14, 106. doi:10.1186/cc8192CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazi, MR, Chowdhury, N, Chowdhury, M, et al. (2021) Conducting comprehensive scoping reviews to systematically capture the landscape of a subject matter. Population Medicine 3, 36. doi:10.18332/popmed/143831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, L, Francis, EC, and Clover, AJ (2018) New technologies in global burn care – A review of recent advances. International Journal of Burns and Trauma 8, 7787.Google Scholar
Kerever, S, Jacquens, A, Smail-Faugeron, V, et al. (2019) Methodological management of end-of-life decision data in intensive care studies: A systematic review of 178 randomized control trials published in seven major journals. PLoS One 14, .10.1371/journal.pone.0217134CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khalil, H, Peters, M, Godfrey, CM, et al. (2016) An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 13, 118123. doi:10.1111/wvn.12144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knaul, FM, Farmer, PE, Krakauer, EL, et al. (2018) Alleviating the access abyss in palliative care and pain relief-an imperative of universal health coverage: The Lancet Commission report. Lancet 391, 13911454.Google ScholarPubMed
Krug, K, Miksch, A, Peters-Klimm, F et al. (2016) Correlation between patient quality of life in palliative care and burden of their family caregivers: A prospective observational cohort study. BMC Palliative Care 15, 4. doi:10.1186/s12904-016-0082-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, KC, Joory, K and Moiemen, NS (2014) History of burns: The past, present and the future. Burns & Trauma 2, 169180. doi:10.4103/2321-3868.143620Google ScholarPubMed
Le Gall, JR, Azoulay, É, Embriaco, N, et al. (2011) Burn out syndrome among critical care workers. Bulletin de l’Académie Nationale de Médecine 195, 389397. doi:10.1016/S0001-4079(19)32097-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levac, D, Colquhoun, H and O’Brien, KK (2010) Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 5, 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilley, EJ, Lee, KC, Scott, JW, et al. (2018) The impact of inpatient palliative care on end-of-life care among older trauma patients who die after hospital discharge. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 85, 992998. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000002000CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lobo, SM, De Simoni, FHB, Jakob, SM, et al. ICON Investigators (2017) Decision-making on withholding or withdrawing life support in the ICU: A worldwide perspective. Chest 152, 321329. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martins Pereira, S, Fradique, E and Hernandez-Marrero, P (2018) End-of-life decision making in palliative care and recommendations of the Council of Europe: Qualitative secondary analysis of interviews and observation field notes. Journal of Palliative Medicine 21, 604615. doi:10.1089/jpm.2017.0403CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martins Pereira, S, Teixeira, CM, Carvalho, AS, et al. InPalIn (2016) Compared to palliative care, working in intensive care more than doubles the chances of burnout: Results from a nationwide comparative study. PLoS One 11, . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metaxa, V and Lavrentieva, A (2015) End-of-life decisions in burn intensive care units – An international survey. Burns 41, 5357. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2014.05.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Methley, AM, Campbell, S, Chew-Graham, C, et al. (2014) PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research 14, 579. doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G (2017) Rapidly increasing end-of-life care needs: A timely warning. BMC Medicine 15, 126. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0897-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittmann, N, Liu, N, MacKinnon, M, et al. (2020) Does early palliative identification improve the use of palliative care services? PLoS One 15, . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, et al. (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine 6, . doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moon, JY and Kim, J-O (2015) Ethics in the intensive care unit. Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 78, 175179. doi:10.4046/trd.2015.78.3.175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munn, Z, Peters, MDJ, Stern, C, et al. (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18, 143. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norton, SA, Hogan, LA, Holloway, RG, et al. (2007) Proactive palliative care in the medical intensive care unit: Effects on length of stay for selected high-risk patients. Critical Care Medicine 35, 15301535. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000266533.06543.0CCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connor, NR, Junker, P, Appel, SM, et al. (2018) Palliative care consultation for goals of care and future acute care costs: A propensity-matched study. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®. 35, 966971. doi:10.1177/1049909117743475CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, . doi:10.1136/bmj.n71Google ScholarPubMed
Partain, NS, Subramanian, M, Hodgman, EI, et al. (2016) Characterizing end-of-life care after geriatric burns at a verified level I burn center. Journal of Palliative Medicine 19, 12751280. doi:10.1089/jpm.2016.0152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, S, Harding, A, Williams, T, et al. (2022) Revised recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC): A Delphi study. Palliative Medicine 36(4), 680697. doi:10.1177/02692163221074547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penders, YWH, Bopp, M, Zellweger, U, et al. (2020) Continuing, withdrawing, and withholding medical treatment at the end of life and associated characteristics: A mortality follow-back study. Journal of General Internal Medicine 35, 126132. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05344-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perpina-Galvan, J, Orts-Beneito, N, Fernandez-Alcantara, M, et al. (2019) Level of burden and health-related quality of life in caregivers of palliative care patients. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 4806. doi:10.3390/ijerph16234806CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, MD, Godfrey, CM, Khalil, H, et al. (2015) Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 13, 141146. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, MDJ, Marnie, C, Colquhoun, H, et al. (2021a) Scoping reviews: Reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Systematic Reviews 10, 263. doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, MDJ, Marnie, C, Tricco, AC, et al. (2021b) Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation 19, 310. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pham, TN, Andrew Otto, SR, Bradley Kramer, YC, et al. (2012) Early withdrawal of life support in severe burn injury. Journal of Burn Care & Research 33, 130135. doi:10.1097/BCR.0b013e31823e598dCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quill, T, Norton, S, Shah, M, et al. (2006) What is most important for you to achieve?: An analysis of patient responses when receiving palliative care consultation. Journal of Palliative Medicine 9, 382388. doi:10.1089/jpm.2006.9.382CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramazzotti, D, Clardy, P, Celi, LA, et al. (2019) Withholding or withdrawing invasive interventions may not accelerate time to death among dying ICU patients. PLoS One 14, . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0212439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, DE, Karlekar, MB, Crouse, DL, et al. (2017) Care of the critically ill burn patient an overview from the perspective of optimizing palliative care. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 14, 10941102.Google ScholarPubMed
Ribeiro, AF, Martins Pereira, S, Gomes, B, et al. (2019) Do patients, families, and healthcare teams benefit from the integration of palliative care in burn intensive care units? Results from a systematic review with narrative synthesis. Palliative Medicine 33(10), 12411254. doi:10.1177/0269216319862160CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruiz, S, Snyder, LP, Giuriceo, K, et al. (2017) Innovative models for high-risk patients use care coordination and palliative supports to reduce end-of-life utilization and spending. Innovation in Aging 1, . doi:10.1093/geroni/igx021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawatzky, R, Laforest, E, Schick-Makaroff, K, et al. (2017) Design and introduction of a quality of life assessment and practice support system: Perspectives from palliative care settings. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes 2, 36. doi:10.1186/s41687-018-0065-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shorter, M and Stayt, LC (2010) Critical care nurses’ experiences of grief in an adult intensive care unit. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66, 159167. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05191.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sierra Zúñiga, MF, Castro Delgado, OE, Merchán-Galvis, AM et al. (2016) Factors associated with length of hospital stay in minor and moderate burns at Popayan, Colombia. Analysis of a cohort study. Burns 42, 190195. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2015.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, P, Pathak, S and Sharma, RM (2018) A comparison of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II in predicting sepsis outcome in intensive care unit. Anesthesia: Essays and Researches 12, 592597. doi:10.4103/aer.AER_60_18Google Scholar
Spronk, I, Van Loey, NEE, Sewalt, C, et al. (2020) Recovery of health-related quality of life after burn injuries: An individual participant data meta-analysis. PLoS One 15, . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226653CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprung, CL, Ricou, B, Hartog, CS, et al. (2019) Changes in end-of-life practices in European intensive care units from 1999 to 2016. JAMA, 112.Google ScholarPubMed
Stokes, MAR and Johnson, WD (2017) Burns in the third world: An unmet need. Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters 30(4), 243246.Google ScholarPubMed
Stow, D, Matthews, FE and Hanratty, B (2018) Frailty trajectories to identify end of life: A longitudinal population-based study. BMC Medicine 16, 171. doi:10.1186/s12916-018-1148-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streeck, N (2019) Death without distress? The taboo of suffering in palliative care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23(3), 343351. doi:10.1007/s11019-019-09921-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, JW, Otto, AM, Gibran, NS et al. (2013) Trajectories to death in patients with burn injury. Journal of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery 74, 282288. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3182788a1cCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teven, CM and Gottlieb, LJ (2018) The four-quadrant approach to ethical issues in burn care. AMA Journal of Ethics 20(1), 595601. doi:10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.6.vwpt1-1806Google ScholarPubMed
Todd, J, Gepp, A, Richards, B, et al. (2019) Improving mortality models in the ICU with high-frequency data. International Journal of Medical Informatics 129, 318323. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.07.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, et al. (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169, 467473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velarde-Garcia, JF, Luengo-Gonzalez, R, Gonzalez-Hervias, R, et al. (2016) Facing death in the intensive care unit. A phenomenological study of nurses’ experiences. Contemporary Nurse 52, 112. doi:10.1080/10376178.2016.1194725CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weng, TC, Lee, IY, Wei, YT, et al. (2019) Mortality and acute burden of burn injury in a medical center in Taiwan. Value in Health 22, S214S214. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessman, BT, Sona, C and Schallom, M (2017) Improving caregivers’ perceptions regarding patient goals of care/end-of-life issues for the multidisciplinary critical care team. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 32, 6876. doi:10.1177/0885066615606063CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO (2019) Violence and injury prevention. https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/other_injury/burns/en/ (accessed 16 April 2020).Google Scholar
Wilkinson, DJ and Savulescu, J (2011) Knowing when to stop: Futility in the ICU. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology 24, 160165. doi:10.1097/ACO.0b013e328343c5afCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zack-Williams, SDL, Gurusinghe, D, Tridente, A, et al. (2021) Comfort care for burns patients: The gold standard for assessment and delivery of care remains in a burn center. Burns 47, 733734. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2020.07.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flowchart.

Figure 1

Table 1. Operationalization of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework in this scoping review

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Experiencing end-of-life in burn intensive care units: synthesis of themes and subthemes.

Figure 3

Table 2. Characteristics of the articles (n = 18) included for analysis

Figure 4

Table 3. Overview of the experiences related to the end-of-life in burn intensive care units

Figure 5

Table 4. Synthesis of the key themes and subthemes about the end-of-life in burn intensive care units

Supplementary material: File

Ribeiro et al. supplementary material

Ribeiro et al. supplementary material

Download Ribeiro et al. supplementary material(File)
File 35.8 KB