The Geriatric Emergency: Avoiding the Pitfalls

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

The aging global population presents unique challenges in emergency and critical care settings. Elderly patients frequently manifest atypical presentations of life-threatening conditions, require extended emergency department stays due to capacity constraints, and necessitate sensitive discussions about treatment goals in high-acuity situations. This review explores evidence-based approaches to recognizing cryptic presentations of sepsis and myocardial infarction in geriatric patients, implementing safe holding strategies during prolonged ED boarding, and conducting effective goals-of-care conversations when time is limited. Understanding these principles is essential for contemporary critical care practice.

Keywords: geriatric emergency medicine, atypical presentation, ED boarding, goals of care, sepsis, myocardial infarction

---

Introduction

By 2030, adults aged 65 and older will comprise 20% of the United States population, with similar demographic shifts occurring globally—a phenomenon termed the "Silver Tsunami."[1] This demographic transition has profound implications for emergency and critical care medicine. Elderly patients account for 15-20% of emergency department (ED) visits but consume disproportionate resources and experience higher rates of adverse outcomes.[2] The physiologic changes of aging, multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and altered pharmacodynamics create a perfect storm where classic clinical presentations become unreliable, diagnostic certainty decreases, and therapeutic windows narrow.

This review addresses three critical domains in geriatric emergency care: recognizing atypical disease presentations, managing prolonged ED stays safely, and navigating time-sensitive goals-of-care discussions.

---

Atypical Presentations of Sepsis and MI in the Elderly

The Problem of Diagnostic Ambiguity

The elderly frequently present with non-specific complaints that mask serious pathology. Studies demonstrate that up to 40% of geriatric patients with serious infections present without fever, and 20-30% of elderly myocardial infarction (MI) patients lack chest pain.[3,4] This diagnostic ambiguity stems from multiple factors:

Physiologic Blunting: Age-related decline in thermoregulation, decreased inflammatory response, autonomic dysfunction, and altered pain perception fundamentally change symptom expression.[5] The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis becomes less responsive, cytokine production may be dysregulated, and sensory nerve conduction velocity decreases by 10-15% per decade after age 60.[6]

Cognitive Impairment: Baseline dementia, delirium, or medication effects limit accurate symptom reporting. Approximately 30-40% of ED patients over 75 have cognitive impairment, making history-taking unreliable.[7]

Polypharmacy Effects: Beta-blockers mask tachycardia and attenuate stress responses; NSAIDs alter inflammatory markers; anticholinergics contribute to delirium; and opioids cloud the clinical picture.[8]

Sepsis in the Elderly: Beyond the Obvious

Pearl #1: Hypothermia is as concerning as fever. Temperature <36°C carries similar mortality risk to fever >38°C in elderly septic patients.[9] One study found 12% of bacteremic elderly patients were hypothermic rather than febrile.[10]

Atypical Presentations to Recognize:

• Altered mental status as the sole presenting complaint (seen in 25-50% of elderly sepsis cases)[11]
• Functional decline: New inability to perform ADLs, increased falls, or decreased oral intake
• Tachypnea: Often the earliest and most sensitive vital sign abnormality (respiratory rate >20 breaths/min has 90% sensitivity)[12]
• Normotensive sepsis: Systolic BP 100-120 mmHg may represent relative hypotension in chronically hypertensive patients

Oyster #1: The qSOFA paradox. While qSOFA (quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) performs poorly for sepsis identification in general populations, it has even worse sensitivity in the elderly (40-60% vs. 60-70% in younger adults).[13] The absence of fever and altered baseline mental status make qSOFA criteria unreliable. A modified approach considering change from baseline is superior.

Hack #1: The "Geriatric Sepsis Screen" When evaluating non-specific complaints in elderly patients, systematically assess:

1. Temperature extremes (<36°C or >38°C)
2. Respiratory rate >20 or SpO2 <92% on room air
3. Any change in mental status from baseline
4. New functional impairment
5. Lactate >2 mmol/L (even with normal BP)
6. White blood cell count <4,000 or >12,000 (but note: 30% have normal WBC)[14]

If ≥3 criteria present, proceed with sepsis workup regardless of "looking well."

Diagnostic Pitfalls:

• The "stable vitals" trap: Normal heart rate due to beta-blockers, pacemaker, or age-related chronotropic incompetence
• The "low-grade fever" dismissal: Temperature of 37.9°C may represent a 2-degree elevation from a baseline of 36°C
• Laboratory over-reliance: Inflammatory markers (CRP, procalcitonin) are less specific; maintain high clinical suspicion despite "reassuring" labs[15]

Evidence-Based Management Considerations: Early antibiotics remain critical, but dosing requires adjustment. Age-related decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR decreases ~1 mL/min/year after age 40) mandates renal dose adjustments even with "normal" creatinine due to decreased muscle mass.[16] Consider empiric vancomycin dosing based on actual body weight, not estimated formulas, and obtain early troughs. Fluid resuscitation requires nuance—the 30 mL/kg bolus may precipitate pulmonary edema in patients with diastolic dysfunction; consider 15-20 mL/kg initially with frequent reassessment.[17]

Myocardial Infarction: Silent but Deadly

Pearl #2: The "silent MI" is common, not rare. Studies show 25-35% of elderly MIs are unrecognized, discovered incidentally on subsequent ECGs.[18] These silent events carry similar mortality to symptomatic MIs but are diagnosed an average of 2.5 hours later.[19]

Atypical Presentations of Elderly MI:

• Dyspnea alone (40% of elderly MI patients)[20]
• Acute confusion or delirium (15-20% of cases)
• Syncope or presyncope (particularly with inferior wall MI)
• Epigastric discomfort or nausea (mistaken for gastroesophageal reflux disease)
• Sudden functional decline or weakness
• New onset atrial fibrillation

Oyster #2: The troponin trap. Chronic troponin elevation is common in elderly patients due to chronic kidney disease, heart failure, or myocardial strain. A single elevated troponin is non-diagnostic. The key is demonstrating a rise and/or fall pattern—obtain serial troponins at 0 and 3 hours using high-sensitivity assays. A delta change >20% suggests acute coronary syndrome.[21] However, chronic elevations typically hover between 20-100 ng/L, so absolute values >5x the 99th percentile still demand investigation.

Hack #2: The "Non-Chest Pain MI Protocol" For elderly patients with dyspnea, altered mental status, syncope, or malaise:

1. Obtain ECG within 10 minutes (not after other workup)
2. Interpret ECG cautiously—look for ST-segment changes, new Q waves, or dynamic T-wave changes, not just "classic STEMI"
3. Consider posterior leads (V7-V9) and right-sided leads (V4R) for occult infarctions
4. Obtain point-of-care troponin immediately, repeat at 3 hours
5. Low threshold for cardiology consultation

ECG Interpretation Challenges:

• Baseline ECG abnormalities (LBBB, LVH, paced rhythm) are common
• New LBBB may indicate acute MI—use Sgarbossa criteria (modified for high-sensitivity)[22]
• Posterior MI manifests as ST-depression in V1-V3, not elevation
• Wellens syndrome (biphasic T-waves in V2-V3) indicates critical LAD stenosis

Management Pearls: Elderly patients are underrepresented in acute MI trials but benefit equally from reperfusion strategies. Age alone should not preclude PCI or thrombolysis. However, bleeding risk increases significantly—consider radial access for catheterization (50% reduction in access-site bleeding)[23] and weight-based dosing of anticoagulants. The trade-off between thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk requires individualization; calculate HAS-BLED and CRUSADE scores to guide decisions.[24]

---

The "Silver Tsunami" and ED Boarding: Strategies for Safe Holding

The Scope of the Problem

ED boarding—holding admitted patients in the ED beyond 4-6 hours due to lack of inpatient beds—has reached crisis proportions. Elderly patients are disproportionately affected, with median boarding times of 8-12 hours and some studies reporting >24 hours.[25] This is not benign: each hour of boarding increases mortality by 1-2%, and prolonged boarding is associated with higher rates of delirium, pressure ulcers, functional decline, and medication errors.[26,27]

The problem is bidirectional: elderly patients have complex needs requiring extended ED workup, and their multimorbidity makes them less amenable to rapid "treat-and-street" approaches. Simultaneously, hospital capacity constraints disproportionately affect elderly admissions due to longer lengths of stay and social disposition complexity.

Physiologic Vulnerabilities During Boarding

Pearl #3: The ED environment is inherently deliriogenic. Constant noise (60-85 decibels), continuous lighting, sleep disruption, immobilization, and sensory deprivation create a perfect storm for delirium development. Studies show 10-15% of cognitively intact elderly patients develop delirium during prolonged ED stays.[28]

Specific Risks:

• Immobilization: Muscle strength decreases 5% per day of bedrest in elderly patients[29]
• Pressure injury: ED mattresses are not pressure-redistributing; Stage 2 ulcers can develop within 6-8 hours[30]
• Aspiration risk: Supine positioning, inadequate swallow evaluation, and NPO status
• Medication errors: ED formularies differ from inpatient; home medications may be withheld
• Falls: Unfamiliar environment, side rails (paradoxically increase fall risk), inadequate supervision

Evidence-Based Boarding Strategies

Hack #3: The "Geriatric Safe Holding Checklist"

Immediate Actions (within 1 hour of admission decision):

1. Mobility assessment: Get patient out of bed if medically stable—even to chair
2. Delirium prevention bundle implementation:
   • Reorient frequently (clock, calendar visible)
   • Ensure glasses and hearing aids in place
   • Reduce unnecessary noise
   • Establish day-night cycle (dim lights after 10 PM)
3. Pressure injury prevention: Turn every 2 hours, request pressure-redistributing mattress
4. Medication reconciliation: Confirm home medications continued or intentionally held
5. Nutrition/hydration: Remove NPO status unless specific indication; offer fluids, meals

Every 4 Hours:

1. Reassess vital signs and mental status
2. Perform targeted physical exam (especially skin, respiratory, volume status)
3. Mobilize patient (at minimum, chair position)
4. Bladder scanning if not voiding regularly (urinary retention causes delirium)
5. Pain reassessment using validated geriatric scales

Oyster #3: The fall prevention paradox. Side rails, bed alarms, and restraints—often used to "prevent falls"—actually increase fall severity and agitation while not reducing fall incidence.[31] Evidence-based alternatives include:

• Low beds with floor mats
• Frequent rounding schedules ("purposeful hourly rounding")
• Addressing reasons for getting up (pain, toileting, thirst)
• 1:1 observation for high-risk patients (more effective than restraints)

Medication Management During Boarding:

Hack #4: The "Boarding Medication Audit" Review and adjust medications for ED boarding context:

• Discontinue or hold deliriogenic medications: Benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, diphenhydramine, H2-blockers
• Optimize pain management: Use multimodal analgesia (acetaminophen, topical agents) before systemic opioids
• Maintain chronic disease management: Don't withhold Parkinson's medications, antiepileptics, or cardiac medications without clear rationale
• Avoid "PRN sedation" for agitation: Treat underlying cause (pain, urinary retention, constipation) rather than chemical restraint

Systems-Level Interventions:

Evidence supports several organizational strategies:

1. Vertical integration: Dedicated geriatric ED observation units reduce boarding times by 30-40%[32]
2. Geriatric ED-ICU co-management: Intensivist involvement during boarding phase improves outcomes
3. Full capacity protocols: When hospital is at capacity, systematic approaches to ED boarding (designated areas, nursing ratios, physician oversight) reduce adverse events by 20-25%[33]
4. Early social work/case management involvement: Disposition planning begins in ED, reducing LOS by 10-15 hours[34]

Communication During Prolonged Boarding

Pearl #4: Family presence is protective. When feasible, encourage family to stay—they recognize mental status changes earlier, assist with reorientation, and advocate effectively. However, set realistic expectations about waiting times and care delivery in the ED environment.

Assign a primary nurse and physician for the boarding period. Inconsistent handoffs during prolonged ED stays are a major source of medical errors. Brief, structured handoffs every 8 hours should occur.

---

Goals of Care Conversations in the High-Acuity Setting

The Timing Dilemma

Critical illness often presents without warning, necessitating urgent goals-of-care discussions when patients are frequently non-communicative and families are in crisis. The emergency setting is far from ideal for nuanced advance care planning, yet decisions cannot be deferred. Studies show 75% of elderly patients lack advance directives, and among those who have them, only 30% are readily available during ED presentations.[35]

The intensivist faces competing pressures: the imperative to act rapidly in reversible conditions versus the obligation to honor patient autonomy and avoid non-beneficial interventions. This tension is particularly acute in geriatric emergencies where trajectories are uncertain and prognosis difficult to predict.

Foundational Principles

Pearl #5: Prognostic humility is essential. While validated scoring systems (APACHE, SOFA) inform mortality risk, they perform poorly for individual prediction in elderly patients. Avoid statements like "There's nothing more we can do" (almost never true) or presenting overly precise survival statistics ("15% chance of survival") which imply false certainty.[36]

The Shared Decision-Making Model remains the gold standard, even in emergencies. Key tenets:

1. The physician provides medical expertise about options and likely outcomes
2. The patient/surrogate provides values, preferences, and goals
3. Together, they identify a treatment approach aligned with patient values

This differs from pure patient autonomy (presenting options without guidance) and paternalism (deciding unilaterally).

Practical Framework for Time-Limited Discussions

Hack #5: The "VALUES Conversation" Approach

V - Value understanding: "Help me understand what matters most to your mother."

A - Assess baseline and trajectory: "Before this illness, what was her daily life like? What was she able to do?"

L - Lay out the medical situation: Use plain language, avoid jargon. "Her heart is very weak and her lungs are filling with fluid. She's in critical condition."

U - Understand treatment burdens and benefits: Be honest about what treatments can and cannot achieve. "The breathing tube might get her through the next few days, but her underlying heart failure is severe."

E - Explore alignment with goals: "Given what you've told me about her values, does being on life support fit with what she would want?"

S - Support the decision-making process: Regardless of the decision, affirm the family's role and commit to honoring the chosen path.

Oyster #4: The "trial of ICU" trap. Offering "a trial of everything" to buy time for discussion seems compassionate but often prolongs suffering without changing outcomes. Time-limited trials (TLTs) are more effective: "Let's use maximum support for 72 hours. If her organ function improves, we continue. If she worsens or plateaus despite our best efforts, we'll transition to comfort-focused care." TLTs require pre-specified endpoints and scheduled reassessment.[37]

Common Scenarios and Approaches

Scenario 1: The Un-represented Patient

When a critically ill elderly patient arrives without decision-makers and treatment must begin:

1. Provide initial stabilization (this is not imposing unwanted treatment—it's buying time)
2. Simultaneously conduct a rapid search for surrogate decision-makers (emergency contacts, primary care physician, nursing home records)
3. Document the emergency justification clearly
4. Re-address goals within 24-48 hours once surrogates located

Scenario 2: Family Conflict

When family members disagree about goals:

1. Identify the legal decision-maker (healthcare proxy, next-of-kin hierarchy varies by jurisdiction)
2. Facilitate family meeting with all stakeholders
3. Refocus on patient values: "What would your father say if he could speak for himself?"
4. Consider ethics consultation if conflict persists
5. Remember: family consensus is ideal but not required—legal surrogate has final authority

Scenario 3: The "Do Everything" Request for Futile Care

When surrogates request interventions clinicians believe are non-beneficial:

1. Explore the source of the request: Is it rooted in hope, guilt, religious beliefs, mistrust, or misunderstanding?
2. Reframe goals: "I hear that you want us to do everything. I want to do everything that will help her. Let me explain why CPR wouldn't help in this situation..."
3. Distinguish between patient choice (goals of care) and physician recommendations (how to achieve those goals)
4. Be clear about what you will and won't offer, while maintaining empathy
5. Involve palliative care and ethics consultation early

Pearl #6: Cultural humility is not optional. Cultural background profoundly influences perspectives on autonomy, family decision-making, disclosure of prognosis, and definitions of quality of life. Avoid assumptions. Ask open-ended questions: "How are major medical decisions typically made in your family?" Use professional interpreters (never family members) for language-discordant discussions.[38]

Documentation Best Practices

Goals-of-care discussions must be meticulously documented:

1. Who participated in the discussion
2. Patient's baseline functional and cognitive status
3. Diagnosis and prognosis explained
4. Patient values and goals articulated by surrogate
5. Treatment options discussed with benefits and burdens
6. Decision reached and rationale
7. Plan for reassessment

Use structured templates like "Serious Illness Conversation Guide" to ensure consistency.[39]

When to Involve Palliative Care

Hack #6: Palliative care triggers in geriatric emergencies:

• Surprise question: "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next year?" If no, consult palliative care
• Recurrent ED visits or ICU admissions for same chronic condition
• Patient/family request to discuss goals of care
• Physician-surrogate conflict about treatment plan
• Complex symptom management needs
• Discussion of transition to comfort-focused care

Early palliative care consultation (within 24 hours of ICU admission) improves family satisfaction, reduces ICU length of stay, and does not increase mortality.[40] This is particularly true for elderly patients with multimorbidity.

---

Conclusion

Geriatric emergencies demand a paradigm shift from protocol-driven care to individualized, contextualized medicine. Atypical presentations require high clinical suspicion and systematic assessment beyond standard criteria. Prolonged ED boarding necessitates proactive prevention of iatrogenic complications through evidence-based interventions. Goals-of-care conversations, though challenging in acute settings, must occur with compassion, clarity, and cultural sensitivity.

The growing elderly population will continue to test emergency and critical care systems. Clinicians who master these competencies—recognizing cryptic pathology, protecting vulnerable patients during boarding, and navigating complex ethical terrain—will be best positioned to deliver high-quality, patient-centered care. The challenge is substantial, but so is the opportunity to meaningfully impact outcomes for our most vulnerable patients.

---

Key Takeaways

1. Absence of fever or chest pain does not exclude sepsis or MI in elderly patients—maintain high suspicion for atypical presentations
2. Systematic implementation of delirium prevention, mobility, and pressure injury protocols reduces adverse events during ED boarding
3. Goals-of-care conversations should employ shared decision-making, prognostic humility, and cultural sensitivity even in time-limited situations
4. Early involvement of geriatric expertise and palliative care improves outcomes and family satisfaction
5. Age-based discrimination has no place in critical care—individualized assessment of function, not chronologic age, should guide decisions

---

References

1. Ortman JM, Velkoff VA, Hogan H. An aging nation: the older population in the United States. US Census Bureau. 2014;25-1140.

2. Samaras N, Chevalley T, Samaras D, Gold G. Older patients in the emergency department: a review. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(3):261-269.

3. Norman DC. Fever in the elderly. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(1):148-151.

4. Brieger D, Eagle KA, Goodman SG, et al. Acute coronary syndromes without chest pain, an underdiagnosed and undertreated high-risk group. Chest. 2004;126(2):461-469.

5. Gavazzi G, Krause KH. Ageing and infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002;2(11):659-666.

6. Dorfman LJ, Bosley TM. Age-related changes in peripheral and central nerve conduction in man. Neurology. 1979;29(1):38-44.

7. Han JH, Zimmerman EE, Cutler N, et al. Delirium in older emergency department patients: recognition, risk factors, and psychomotor subtypes. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(3):193-200.

8. Lai SW, Liao KF, Liao CC, Muo CH, Liu CS, Sung FC. Polypharmacy correlates with increased risk for hip fracture in the elderly. Medicine. 2010;89(5):295-299.

9. Tiruvoipati R, Ong K, Gangopadhyay H, et al. Hypothermia predicts mortality in critically ill elderly patients with sepsis. BMC Geriatr. 2010;10:70.

10. Keating HJ III, Klimek JJ, Levine DS, Kiernan FJ. Effect of aging on the clinical significance of fever in ambulatory adult patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1984;32(4):282-287.

11. Girard TD, Ely EW. Bacteremia and sepsis in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med. 2007;23(3):633-647.

12. Ljunggren M, Castrén M, Nordberg M, Kurland L. The association between vital signs and mortality in a retrospective cohort study of an unselected emergency department population. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24:21.

13. Moskowitz A, Patel PV, Grossestreuer AV, et al. Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria as predictors of critical care intervention among patients with suspected infection. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(11):1813-1819.

14. Girard TD, Opal SM, Ely EW. Insights into severe sepsis in older patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40(7):1009-1015.

15. Riedel S, Carroll KC. Blood cultures: key elements for best practices and future directions. J Infect Chemother. 2010;16(5):301-316.

16. Fink MP, Abraham E, Vincent JL, Kochanek PM. Textbook of Critical Care. 6th ed. Elsevier Saunders; 2011.

17. Marik PE, Linde-Zwirble WT, Bittner EA, Sahatjian J, Hansell D. Fluid administration in severe sepsis and septic shock, patterns and outcomes. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(6):803-811.

18. Valensi P, Lorgis L, Cottin Y. Prevalence, incidence, predictive factors and prognosis of silent myocardial infarction: a review of the literature. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2011;104(3):178-188.

19. Stern S, Behar S, Gottlieb S. Aging and diseases of the heart. Circulation. 2003;108(9):99e-101e.

20. Canto JG, Shlipak MG, Rogers WJ, et al. Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and mortality among patients with myocardial infarction presenting without chest pain. JAMA. 2000;283(24):3223-3229.

21. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2018;138(20):e618-e651.

22. Meyers HP, Limkakeng AT Jr, Jaffa EJ, et al. Validation of the modified Sgarbossa criteria for acute coronary occlusion in the setting of left bundle branch block. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;66(4):383-392.

23. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(11):997-1006.

24. Subherwal S, Bach RG, Chen AY, et al. Baseline risk of major bleeding in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2009;119(14):1873-1882.

25. Pines JM, Hilton JA, Weber EJ, et al. International perspectives on emergency department crowding. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(12):1358-1370.

26. Singer AJ, Thode HC Jr, Viccellio P, Pines JM. The association between length of emergency department boarding and mortality. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(12):1324-1329.

27. Liu SW, Thomas SH, Gordon JA, Hamedani AG, Weissman JS. A pilot study examining undesirable events among emergency department-boarded patients awaiting inpatient beds. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54(3):381-385.

28. Kennedy M, Enander RA, Tadiri SP, Wolfe RE, Shapiro NI, Marcantonio ER. Delirium risk prediction, healthcare use and mortality of elderly adults in the emergency department. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(3):462-469.

29. Kortebein P, Ferrando A, Lombeida J, Wolfe R, Evans WJ. Effect of 10 days of bed rest on skeletal muscle in healthy older adults. JAMA. 2007;297(16):1772-1774.

30. Lyder CH, Ayello EA. Pressure ulcers: a patient safety issue. In: Hughes RG, ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.

31. Capezuti E, Maislin G, Strumpf N, Evans LK. Side rail use and bed-related fall outcomes among nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(1):90-96.

32. Hwang U, Morrison RS. The geriatric emergency department. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(11):1873-1876.

33. Villa-Roel C, Guo X, Holroyd BR, et al. The role of full capacity protocols on mitigating overcrowding in EDs. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(3):412-420.

34. Guttman A, Afilalo M, Guttman R, et al. An international perspective on emergency department crowding. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(12):1358-1370.

35. Sudore RL, Fried TR. Redefining the "planning" in advance care planning. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(12):2353-2359.

36. Yourman LC, Lee SJ, Schonberg MA, Widera EW, Smith AK. Prognostic indices for older adult*s: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307(2):182-192.

37. Quill CM, Ratcliffe SJ, Harhay MO, Halpern SD. Variation in decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapies in US ICUs. Chest. 2014;146(3):573-582.

38. Curtis JR, White DB. Practical guidance for evidence-based ICU family conferences. Chest. 2008;134(4):835-843.

39. Bernacki R, Hutchings M, Vick J, et al. Development of the Serious Illness Care Program. J Palliat Med. 2015;18(1):5-12.

40. Aslakson R, Cheng J, Vollenweider D, Galusca D, Smith TJ, Pronovost PJ. Evidence-based palliative care in the intensive care unit: a systematic review. J Palliat Med. 2014;17(2):219-235.