Choice architecture in code status discussions with terminally ill patients and their families

Clinicians' Use of Choice Framing in ICU Family Meetings

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the frequency and patterns of clinicians' use of choice frames when discussing preference-sensitive care with surrogate decision-makers in the ICU.

DESIGN

Secondary sequential content analysis.

SETTING

One hundred one audio-recorded and transcribed conferences between surrogates and clinicians of incapacitated, critically ill adults from a prospective, multicenter cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Surrogate decision-makers and clinicians.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four coders identified preference-sensitive decision episodes addressed in the meetings, including topics such as mechanical ventilation, renal replacement, and overall goals of care. Prior critical care literature provided specific topics identified as preference-sensitive specific to the critical care context. Coders then examined each decision episode for the types of choice frames used by clinicians. The choice frames were selected a priori based on decision science literature. In total, there were 202 decision episodes across the 101 transcripts, with 20.3% of the decision episodes discussing mechanical ventilation, 19.3% overall goals of care, 14.4% renal replacement therapy, 14.4% post-discharge care (i.e., discharge location such as a skilled nursing facility), and the remaining 32.1% other topics. Clinicians used default framing, in which an option is presented that will be carried out if another option is not actively chosen, more frequently than any other choice frame (127 or 62.9% of decision episodes). Clinicians presented a polar interrogative, or a "yes or no question" to accept or reject a specific care choice, in 43 (21.3%) decision episodes. Clinicians more frequently presented options emphasizing both potential losses and gains rather than either in isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians frequently use default framing and polar questions when discussing preference-sensitive choices with surrogate decision-makers, which are known to be powerful nudges. Future work should focus on designing interventions promoting the informed use of these and the other most common choice frames used by practicing clinicians.

Spiritual Care

The qualitative experience of sickness and death matters. Modern medicine has made important strides in addressing physical-and to some extent psychological-suffering at the end of life, but biomedical models are not properly equipped to respond to spiritual distress. Medical professionals and spiritual care professionals have an obligation, grounded in the bioethical principle of beneficence, to address all forms of suffering and to advocate for better dying. At the same time, they must approach care from a patient-centered standpoint that avoids spiritual or medical paternalism. The bond that clinicians and patients form through discussing and addressing spiritual distress allows patients to develop a clearer perspective of how their values can be best honored by the medical care team. Ultimately, modern individuals, caught between the dizzying array of possible life choices and the inevitability of mortality, experience immense spiritual need. The drive to care for these needs among dying individuals is a worthwhile pursuit, and traditional ideas of spirituality must expand to meet the needs of the modern individual.

Advance care planning imperative: High-quality patient-centred goals of care

Advance care planning (ACP) discussions aim to ensure goal-concordant care for patients with serious illness, throughout treatment and especially at the end of life. But recent literature has forced the field of palliative care to wrestle with the definition and impact of ACP. Are ACP discussions worthwhile? Is there a difference between ACP discussions early in a patient's illness versus discussions occurring later when a concrete medical care decision must be made? Here, we identify elements needed to answer these questions and describe how a multisite initiative will elucidate the value of discussing and documenting what matters most to patients.

The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sepsis Fluid Resuscitation Decisions: An Exploratory Survey-Based Study

Background

Discordance with well-known sepsis resuscitation guidelines is often attributed to rational assessments of patients at the point of care. Conversely, we sought to explore the impact of choice architecture (i.e., the environment, manner, and behavioral psychology within which options are presented and decisions are made) on decisions to prescribe guideline-discordant fluid volumes.

Design

We conducted an electronic, survey-based study using a septic shock clinical vignette. Physicians from multiple specialties and training levels at an academic tertiary-care hospital and academic safety-net hospital were randomized to distinct answer sets: control (6 fluid options), time constraint (6 fluid options with a 10-s limit to answer), or choice overload (25 fluid options). The primary outcome was discordance with Surviving Sepsis Campaign fluid resuscitation guidelines. We also measured response times and examined the relationship between each choice architecture intervention group, response time, and guideline discordance.

Results

A total of 189 of 624 (30.3%) physicians completed the survey. Time spent answering the vignette was reduced in time constraint (9.5 s, interquartile range [IQR] 7.3 s to 10.0 s, P < 0.001) and increased in choice overload (56.8 s, IQR 35.9 s to 86.7 s, P < 0.001) groups compared with control (28.3 s, IQR 20.0 s to 44.6 s). In contrast, the relative risk of guideline discordance was higher in time constraint (2.07, 1.33 to 3.23, P = 0.001) and lower in choice overload (0.75, 0.60, to 0.95, P =0.02) groups. After controlling for time spent reading the vignette, the overall odds of choosing guideline-discordant fluid volumes were reduced for every additional second spent answering the vignette (OR 0.98, 0.97, to 0.99, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Choice architecture may affect fluid resuscitation decisions in sepsis regardless of patient conditions, warranting further investigation in real-world contexts. These effects should be considered when implementing practice guidelines.

Highlights

A Scoping Review of Person and Family Engagement in the context of Multiple Chronic Conditions

OBJECTIVE

To review definitions, concepts, and evidence regarding person and family engagement for persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) in order to identify opportunities to advance the field.

DATA SOURCE

Ovid MEDLINE STUDY DESIGN: We performed a two-step process: (1) a critical review of conceptual models of engagement to identify key concepts most pertinent to engagement among persons with MCC as a "launch pad" to our scoping review, and (2) a scoping review of reviews of engagement for persons living with MCC.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

First, we critically reviewed six models of engagement. Second, our scoping review identified 1297 citations, with 67 articles meeting criteria for inclusion. Of these, we focused on reviews, of which there were nine titles/abstracts retained for full text consideration. Six full-text reviews were included in the final analysis. The purpose, review type, population, number/type of included studies, theoretical framework, and findings of each study were extracted and analyzed thematically.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Conceptual models of engagement differ with respect to areas of emphasis (e.g., systems or clinical encounters) as well as attention to vulnerable populations; involvement of family; consideration of cost-benefit tradeoffs; and attention to outcomes that matter most. Our scoping review of reviews identified just one article explicitly focused on engagement interventions for those with MCC. Other reviews examined elements of self-management and involvement in decision-making, conceptually related to engagement without explicit use of the word. We find that existing evidence has predominantly described individual-level strategies rather than targeting organizations, systems, or policies. Barriers to engagement are not well described, nor are potential downsides to engagement. Family engagement is rarely considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Promising areas of future work include attention to barriers to engagement including trust, goal-based care, the design of structural changes to care delivery, tradeoffs between benefits and costs, and family engagement. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Measuring Goal-Concordant Care: Results and Reflections From Secondary Analysis of a Trial to Improve Serious Illness Communication

CONTEXT

Many consider goal-concordant care (GCC) to be the most important of advance care planning and palliative care. Researchers face significant challenges in attempting to measure this outcome. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of a system-level intervention to improve serious illness communication on GCC and other outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To describe our measurement approach to GCC, present findings from a post-hoc analysis of trial data, and discuss lessons learned about measuring GCC.

METHODS

Using trial data collected to measure GCC, we analyzed ratings and rankings from a nonvalidated survey of patient priorities in the setting of advanced cancer, the Life Priorities Scale, and compared outcomes with correlative measures.

RESULTS

Participants commonly rated several predetermined and literature-derived priorities as important but did so in ways that were commonly incongruent with rankings. Ratings were frequently stable over time; rankings less so. Rankings are more likely to help assess the degree to which care is goal concordant but may be best augmented by corollary measures that signal achievement of a given priority.

CONCLUSION

Measuring GCC remains a fundamental challenge to palliative care researchers. Ratings attest to the fact that many things matter to patients; however, rankings can better determine what matters most. Insights gained from our experience may guide future research aiming to use this outcome to assess the effect of intervention to improve serious illness care.

Transitioning to Comfort-Focused Care at the End of Life

Shared decision making requires the exchange of information from the patient and the surgeon (and ideally involves the expertise of the entire multidisciplinary team) to determine the medical and/or surgical treatment that best aligns with the patient's goals and values. Should the surgical patient wish to transition to end-of-life care, the transition to comfort-focused care is within the scope of practice for surgeons. Incorporating the expertise of other health care professionals is an important consideration for whole-patient care. Integrating primary palliative care into surgical practice can help mitigate unnecessary suffering and allow a smoother transition to comfort-focused care.

More than one in three proxies do not know their loved one's current code status: An observational study in a Maryland ICU

Rationale

The majority of ICU patients lack decision-making capacity at some point during their ICU stay. However the extent to which proxy decision-makers are engaged in decisions about their patient’s care is challenging to quantify.

Objectives

To assess 1)whether proxies know their patient’s actual code status as recorded in the electronic medical record (EMR), and 2)whether code status orders reflect ICU patient preferences as reported by proxy decision-makers.

Methods

We enrolled proxy decision-makers for 96 days starting January 4, 2016. Proxies were asked about the patient’s goals of care, preferred code status, and actual code status. Responses were compared to code status orders in the EMR at the time of interview. Characteristics of patients and proxies who correctly vs incorrectly identified actual code status were compared, as were characteristics of proxies who reported a preferred code status that did vs did not match actual code status.

Measurements and main results

Among 111 proxies, 42 (38%) were incorrect or unsure about the patient’s actual code status and those who were correct vs. incorrect or unsure were similar in age, race, and years of education (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Twenty-nine percent reported a preferred code status that did not match the patient’s code status in the EMR. Matching preferred and actual code status was not associated with a patient’s age, gender, income, admission diagnosis, or subsequent in-hospital mortality or with proxy age, gender, race, education level, or relation to the patient (P>0.20 for all comparisons).

Conclusions

More than 1 in 3 proxies is incorrect or unsure about their patient’s actual code status and more than 1 in 4 proxies reported that a preferred code status that did not match orders in the EMR. Proxy age, race, gender and education level were not associated with correctly identifying code status or code status concordance.

Ethical challenges in resuscitation

PURPOSE

A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation.

METHODS

Following agreement on the article's outline, subgroups of 2-3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered.

RESULTS

Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals' education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.

Palliative Care in Neurology

Palliative medicine is a specialty that focuses on improving the quality of life for patients with serious or advanced medical conditions, and it is appropriate at any stage of disease, including at the time of diagnosis. Neurologic conditions tend to have high symptom burdens, variable disease courses, and poor prognoses that affect not only patients but also their families and caregivers. Patients with a variety of neurologic conditions such as Parkinson disease, dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, brain tumors, stroke, and acute neurologic illnesses have substantial unmet needs that can be addressed through a combination of primary and specialty palliative care. The complex needs of these patients are ideally managed with a comprehensive approach to care that addresses the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects of care in an effort to reduce suffering. Early discussions about prognosis, goals of care, and advance care planning are critical as they can provide guidance for treatment decisions and allow patients to retain a sense of autonomy despite progressive cognitive or functional decline. With the rapid growth in palliative care across the United States, there are opportunities to improve the palliative care knowledge of neurology trainees, the delivery of palliative care to patients with neurologic disease by both neurologists and nonneurologists, and the research agenda for neuropalliative care.

Aligning critical care interventions with patient goals: A modified Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a list of non-emergent, potentially harmful interventions commonly performed in ICUs that require a clear understanding of patients' treatment goals.

BACKGROUND

A 2016 policy statement from the American Thoracic Society and American College of Critical Care Medicine calls on intensivists to engage in shared decision-making when "making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences."

METHODS

A three-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted via a panel of 6 critical care physicians, 6 ICU nurses, 6 former ICU patients, and 6 family members from 6 academic and community-based medical institutions in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region.

RESULTS

Recommendations about 8 interventions achieved consensus among respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and patient/family participants in a modified Delphi consensus process were able to identify preference-sensitive decisions that should trigger clinicians to clarify patient goals and consider initiating shared decision-making.