Selecting and evaluating decision-making strategies in the intensive care unit: A systematic review

Assessing palliative care practices in intensive care units and interpreting them using the lens of appropriate care concepts. An umbrella review

PURPOSE

Intensive care units (ICUs) have significant palliative care needs but lack a reliable care framework. This umbrella review addresses them by synthesising palliative care practices provided at end-of-life to critically ill patients and their families before, during, and after ICU admission.

METHODS

Seven databases were systematically searched for systematic reviews, and the umbrella review was conducted according to the guidelines laid out by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).

RESULTS

Out of 3122 initial records identified, 40 systematic reviews were included in the synthesis. Six key themes were generated that reflect the palliative and end-of-life care practices in the ICUs and their outcomes. Effective communication and accurate prognostications enabled families to make informed decisions, cope with uncertainty, ease distress, and shorten ICU stays. Inter-team discussions and agreement on a plan are essential before discussing care goals. Recording care preferences prevents unnecessary end-of-life treatments. Exceptional end-of-life care should include symptom management, family support, hydration and nutrition optimisation, avoidance of unhelpful treatments, and bereavement support. Evaluating end-of-life care quality is critical and can be accomplished by seeking family feedback or conducting a survey.

CONCLUSION

This umbrella review encapsulates current palliative care practices in ICUs, influencing patient and family outcomes and providing insights into developing an appropriate care framework for critically ill patients needing end-of-life care and their families.

Factors influencing decision-making processes for intensive care therapy goals: A systematic integrative review

BACKGROUND

Delivering intensive care therapies concordant with patients' values and preferences is considered gold standard care. To achieve this, healthcare professionals must better understand decision-making processes and factors influencing them.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing decision-making processes about implementing and limiting intensive care therapies.

DESIGN

Systematic integrative review, synthesising quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies.

METHODS

Five databases were searched (Medline, The Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL plus) for peer-reviewed, primary research published in English from 2010 to Oct 2022. Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods studies focussing on intensive care decision-making were included for appraisal. Full-text review and quality screening included the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool for qualitative and mixed methods and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument for quantitative studies. Papers were reviewed by two authors independently, and a third author resolved disagreements. The primary author developed a thematic coding framework and performed coding and pattern identification using NVivo, with regular group discussions.

RESULTS

Of the 83 studies, 44 were qualitative, 32 quantitative, and seven mixed-methods studies. Seven key themes were identified: what the decision is about; who is making the decision; characteristics of the decision-maker; factors influencing medical prognostication; clinician-patient/surrogate communication; factors affecting decisional concordance; and how interactions affect decisional concordance. Substantial thematic overlaps existed. The most reported decision was whether to withhold therapies, and the most common decision-maker was the clinician. Whether a treatment recommendation was concordant was influenced by multiple factors including institutional cultures and clinician continuity.

CONCLUSION

Decision-making relating to intensive care unit therapy goals is complicated. The current review identifies that breadth of decision-makers, and the complexity of intersecting factors has not previously been incorporated into interventions or considered within a single review. Its findings provide a basis for future research and training to improve decisional concordance between clinicians and patients/surrogates with regards to intensive care unit therapies.

Early mobility and family partnerships in the intensive care unit: A scoping review of reviews

BACKGROUND

Critical illness significantly impacts the well-being of patients and families. Previous studies show that family members are willing to participate in patient care. Involving families in early mobility interventions may contribute to improved recovery and positive outcomes for patients and families.

AIM

In this scoping review, we investigated early mobility interventions for critically ill patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials and the extent to which family engagement in those interventions are reported in the literature.

STUDY DESIGN

In this scoping review of reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane Central databases were searched in October 2019 and updated in February 2022. Systematic reviews were included and assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. Data were synthesized using a narrative approach. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were adhered to for reporting.

RESULTS

Thirty-three reviews were included which described a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients; none explicitly mentioned family engagement. Almost half of the reviews were of low or critically low quality. Insufficient detail of early mobility interventions prompted information to be extracted from the primary studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients but few involve families. Given the positive outcomes of family participation, and family willingness to participate in care, there is a need to explore the feasibility and acceptability of family participation in early mobility interventions.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Family engagement in early mobility interventions for critically ill patients should be encouraged and supported. How to best support family members and clinicians in enacting family involvement in early mobility requires further investigation.

Family-clinician shared decision making in intensive care units: Cluster randomized trial in China

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if a Family-Clinician Shared Decision-Making (FCSDM) intervention benefits patients, families and intensive care units (ICUs) clinicians.

METHODS

Six ICUs in China were allocated to intervention or usual care. 548 patients with critical illness, 548 family members and 387 ICU clinicians were included into the study. Structured FCSDM family meetings were held in the intervention group. Scales of SSDM, HADS, QoL2 and CSACD were used to assess families' satisfaction and distress, patients' quality of life, and clinicians' collaboration respectively.

RESULTS

Comparing the intervention group with the control group at post-intervention, there were significant differences in the families' satisfaction (P = 0.0001), depression level (P = 0.005), and patients' quality of life (P = 0.0007). The clinicians' mean CSCAD score was more positive in the intervention group than controls (P < 0.05). There was no significant between-group differences on ICU daily medical cost, but the intervention group demonstrated shorter number of days' stay in ICU (P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

The FCSDM intervention improved families' satisfaction and depression, shortened patients' duration of ICU stay, and enhanced ICU clinicians' collaboration.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further improvement and promotion of the FCSDM model are needed to provide more evidence to this field in China.

The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review

Background

At times, clinical case complexity and different types of uncertainty present challenges to less experienced clinicians or the naive application of clinical guidelines where this may not be appropriate. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods are used to elicit, document and transfer tacit knowledge about how experts make decisions.

Methods

We conducted a methodological review to describe the use of CTA methods in understanding expert clinical decision-making. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 2019 for primary research studies which described the use of CTA methods to understand how qualified clinicians made clinical decisions in real-world clinical settings.

Results

We included 81 articles (80 unique studies) from 13 countries, published from 1993 to 2019, most commonly from surgical and critical care settings. The most common aims were to understand expert decision-making in particular clinical scenarios, using expert decision-making in the development of training programmes, understanding whether decision support tools were warranted and understanding procedural variability and error identification or reduction. Critical decision method (CDM) and CTA interviews were most frequently used, with hierarchical task analysis, task knowledge structures, think-aloud protocols and other methods less commonly used. Studies used interviews, observation, think-aloud exercises, surveys, focus groups and a range of more CTA-specific methodologies such as the systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Researchers used CTA methods to investigate routine/typical (n = 64), challenging (n = 13) or more uncommon, rare events and anomalies (n = 3).

Conclusions

In conclusion, the elicitation of expert tacit knowledge using CTA has seen increasing use in clinical specialties working under challenging time pressures, complexity and uncertainty. CTA methods have great potential in the development, refinement, modification or adaptation of complex interventions, clinical protocols and practice guidelines.

Registration

PROSPERO ID CRD42019128418.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01002-6.

Family caregivers' experiences and needs of transitional care during the transfer from intensive care unit to a general ward: A qualitative study

AIM

To explore the family caregivers' experiences and needs of transitional care during the transfer from an intensive care unit to a general ward in China.

BACKGROUND

The transfer of patients from the intensive care unit to the ward is a vulnerable time for patients and caregivers, exposing the risk of readmission and death. However, there are few qualitative studies on the family caregivers' views of transitional care for their loved ones in China.

METHODS

With a qualitative research design, 15 interviews were conducted with 15 family caregivers of hospitalized patients transferred from the neurosurgery ICU to the general ward. Colaizzi's (1978) method of data analysis was performed using the NVivo 11.0 software.

RESULTS

Based on data analysis, four themes were obtained: perception of transfer decision, the experience of transitional care, the obstacles to maintaining care efficiency and demand for transitional care.

CONCLUSION

In order to enhance the continuity of care and improve patient safety during the transfer from an ICU to a general ward in China, priorities should be given to the implementation of effective strategies and methods, including providing psychological and emotional support, encouraging active participation of caregivers, and various communication and collaboration procedures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

The findings from this study can be used as a guide to better preparation and awareness among health care professionals to achieve the much-needed demands of family caregivers, as well as the increased quality of transitional care.

Framework to Support the Process of Decision-Making on Life-Sustaining Treatments in the ICU: Results of a Delphi Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

To develop a consensus framework that can guide the process of decision-making on continuing or limiting life-sustaining treatments in ICU patients, using evidence-based items, supported by caregivers, patients, and surrogate decision makers from multiple countries.

A novel ethical approach to moral distress during COVID 19 in New York

The initial surge of COVID19 patients in New York, created a surge of unprecedented numbers in the largest integrated hospital system of the New York City and surrounding Long Island region. Due to innovation and clinician ingenuity ventilator allocation was going to have an easier solution than alleviating the moral distress of overworked and understaffed clinicians. Through the innovative work of clinicians, leadership and the leadership of Governor Cuomo and hospital executives, the need for triaging ventilators did not become a reality. Yet the need for ethicists to support and aid clinicians in the discernment and need for escalation for scarce ICU resources and personnel was key. The transition from an allocation strategy of ventilators organically occurred as rapidly as the surge of COVID19 as it became clear that addressing clinician distress was imperative to maintain the level of human capital. An allocation strategy was envisioned that would assess the urgency of need for intensive care resources utilizing established decision aid calculators. In a mixed method quantitative and qualitative review, this article utilizes descriptive data to illustrate the lessons learned from utilizing ethics consultants to review pandemic decision making and alleviate clinician moral distress.

[Recommendations of the Working Groups from the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) for the management of adult critically ill patients in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)]

On March 11, 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) as a pandemic. The spread and evolution of the pandemic is overwhelming the healthcare systems of dozens of countries and has led to a myriad of opinion papers, contingency plans, case series and emerging trials. Covering all this literature is complex. Briefly and synthetically, in line with the previous recommendations of the Working Groups, the Spanish Society of Intensive, Critical Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) has prepared this series of basic recommendations for patient care in the context of the pandemic.

Recommendations of the Working Groups from the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) for the management of adult critically ill patients in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

On March 11, 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) as a pandemic. The spread and evolution of the pandemic is overwhelming the healthcare systems of dozens of countries and has led to a myriad of opinion papers, contingency plans, case series and emerging trials. Covering all this literature is complex. Briefly and synthetically, in line with the previous recommendations of the Working Groups, the Spanish Society of Intensive, Critical Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) has prepared this series of basic recommendations for patient care in the context of the pandemic.

Swedish intensivists' experiences and attitudes regarding end-of-life decisions

BACKGROUND

To make end-of-life (EOL) decisions is a complex and challenging task for intensive care physicians and a substantial variability in this process has been previously reported. However, a deeper understanding of intensivists' experiences and attitudes regarding the decision-making process is still, to a large extent, lacking. The primary aim of this study was to address Swedish intensivists' experiences, beliefs and attitudes regarding decision-making pertaining to EOL decisions. Second, we aimed to identify underlying factors that may contribute to variability in the decision-making process.

METHOD

This is a descriptive, qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews with nineteen intensivists from five different Swedish hospitals, with different ICU levels, were performed from 1 February 2017 to 31 May 2017.

RESULTS

Intensivists strive to make end-of-life decisions that are well-grounded, based on sufficient information. Consensus with the patient, family and other physicians is important. Concurrently, decisions that are made with scarce information or uncertain medical prognosis, decisions made during on-call hours and without support from senior consultants cause concern for many intensivists. Underlying factors that contribute to the variability in decision-making are lack of continuity among senior intensivists, lack of needed support during on-call hours and disagreements with physicians from other specialties. There is also an individual variability primarily depending on the intensivist's personality.

CONCLUSION

Swedish intensivists' wish to make end-of-life decisions based on sufficient information, medically certain prognosis and consensus with the patient, family, staff and other physicians. Swedish intensivists' experience a variability in end-of-life decisions, which is generally accepted and not questioned.

Ethical content of expert recommendations for end-of-life decision-making in intensive care units: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Intensive care unit health care professionals must be skilled in providing end-of-life care. Crucial in this kind of care is end-of-life decision-making, which is a complex process involving a variety of stakeholders and requiring adequate justification. The aim of this systematic review is to analyse papers tackling ethical issues in relation to end-of-life decision-making in intensive care units. It explores the ethical positions, arguments and principles.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in bibliographic databases and grey literature sources for the time period from 1990 to 2019. The constant comparative method was used for qualitative analysis of included papers in order to identify ethical content including ethical positions, ethical arguments, and ethical principles used in decision-making process.

RESULTS

In the 15 included papers we have identified a total of 43 ethical positions. Ten positions were identified as substantive, 33 as procedural. Twelve different ethical principles emerged from the ethical arguments. The most frequently used principles are the principles of beneficence, autonomy and nonmaleficence.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that recommendations and guidelines designed specifically by intensive or critical care experts for intensive care units promote similar ethical positions, with minimal dissenting positions.