Communicating Delicately: Introducing the Need to Make a Decision About the Use of Life-Sustaining Treatment

The Delicate Situation of Childhood Vaccination: On the Dispreferredness of Soliciting Parents' Intent to Vaccinate

In the Netherlands, parents of newborns typically participate in two-, four-, and eight-week medical consultations to monitor their children's development and discuss vaccinations, which will not be administered before eight weeks. During these visits, healthcare professionals routinely ask parents if they intend to vaccinate their children (i.e. to participate in the National Immunization Program). Using Conversation Analysis, we examine 62 videotaped consultations and present two lines of evidence to argue that the sequence initiated by professionals wherein they solicit parents' intent to vaccinate is dispreferred. First, this action is routinely deferred by preliminary sequences. Second, when professionals eventually initiate this action (i.e. if it is not preempted by parents during pre-sequences), they orient to its dispreferred status, for example by highlighting benefactive details of vaccination. We discuss the possible existence of asymmetrical (initiator-sided) pre-sequences, why soliciting parents' vaccination intent might be dispreferred, and implications for the design of communication interventions.

Introducing "A Question That Might, Perhaps, Scare you": How Geriatric Physicians Approach the Discussion About Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Hospitalized Patients

Decisions about the relevance of life-sustaining treatment, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), are commonly made when a patient is admitted to the hospital. This article aims to refine our understanding of how discussions about CPR are introduced, to identify and classify the components frequently occurring in these introductions, and discuss their implications within the overarching activity (discussing CPR). We recorded 43 discussions about CPR between physicians and patients, taking place during the admission interview. We applied an inductive qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis to all the encounter content from the launch of the conversation on CPR to the point at which the physician formulated a question or the patient an answer. We identified this part of the encounter as the "introduction." This systematic method allowed us to code the material, develop and assign themes and subthemes, and quantify it. We identified four major themes in the introductions: (i) agenda setting; (ii) circumstances leading to CPR (subthemes: types of circumstances, personal prognostics of cardiac arrest); (iii) the activity of addressing CPR with the patient (subthemes: routine, constrain, precedence, sensitivity); and (iv) mentioning advance directives. Our findings reveal the elaborate effort that physicians deploy by appealing to combinations of these themes to account for the need to launch conversations about CPR, and highlight how CPR emerges as a sensitive topic.

How Patients and Families Describe Major Medical Treatments: "They are No Longer Living, Just Existing"

BACKGROUND

As more life-sustaining treatments become available, the need to provide patients and families clarity about what these treatments are and what they do is increasing. Little is known about how patients and families conceptualize life support.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the discourse that patients and families used to describe major medical treatments in their accounts of treatment decision-making.

METHODS

This study is a secondary data analysis of a survey sent to random addresses in Wisconsin regarding experiences with major medical treatment decision-making. This analysis includes the subsample of 366 respondents who specified the type of decision made in the survey's open-ended questions. Inductive content analysis was used to qualitatively analyze the responses to the open-ended questions, with particular attention to how respondents described the treatment in their responses.

RESULTS

Respondents' descriptions showed a conceptualization of engaging in major medical treatments as keeping patients alive, whereas discontinuing or choosing not to engage in such treatments would bring about the patient's death. However, respondents recognized the potential adverse consequences of engaging in major medical treatments, such as their capacity to cause pain or result in an undesirable neurologic state. Additionally, respondents described the limitations of such treatment regarding the uncertainty of the treatments providing the desired outcome or their uselessness in situations in which the patient's death would be inevitable.

CONCLUSION

Understanding how patients and families make sense of major medical treatments can help clinicians during decision-making conversations.

"Do you want us to try to resuscitate?": Conversational practices generating patient decisions regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation

OBJECTIVE

To explore how physicians elicit patients' preferences about cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during hospital admission interviews.

METHODS

Conversation analysis of 37 audio-recorded CPR patient-physician discussions at admission to a geriatric hospital.

RESULTS

The most encountered practice is when physicians submit an option to the patient's validation ("do you want us to resuscitate"). Through it, physicians display presuppositions about the patient's preference, which is not elicited as an autonomous contribution. Through open elicitors ("what would you wish"), physicians treat patients as knowledgeable about options and autonomous in determining their preference. A third practice is related to patients delivering their preference in anticipation of the request and is encountered only for choices against CPR. These decisions are revealed as informed and autonomous, and the patient as collaborative.

CONCLUSION

The way that physicians elicit patients' preferences about CPR influences the delivery of autonomous and informed decisions. Our findings point to an asymmetry in ways of initiating talk about the possibility of not attempting CPR, potentially exacerbated by the context of admission interviews.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Decisions about the relevancy life-sustaining interventions need an adequate setting in order to allow for patient participation. Our findings have implications for communication training in regard to involving patients in conversations about goals of care.

Communicating with patients and families about illness progression and end of life: a review of studies using direct observation of clinical practice

BACKGROUND

There is growing recognition that a diverse range of healthcare professionals need competence in palliative approaches to care. Effective communication is a core component of such practice. This article informs evidence-based communication about illness progression and end of life through a rapid review of studies that directly observe how experienced clinicians manage such discussions.

METHODS

The current rapid review updates findings of a 2014 systematic review, focussing more specifically on evidence related to illness progression and end-of-life conversations. Literature searches were conducted in nine bibliographic databases. Studies using conversation analysis or discourse analysis to examine recordings of actual conversations about illness progression or end of life were eligible for inclusion in the review. An aggregative approach was used to synthesise the findings of included studies.

RESULTS

Following screening, 26 sources were deemed to meet eligibility criteria. Synthesis of study findings identified the structure and functioning of ten communication practices used in discussions about illness progression and end-of-life.

CONCLUSION

The ten practices identified underpin five evidence-based recommendations for communicating with patients or family members about illness progression and end of life.

'It's not magic': A qualitative analysis of geriatric physicians' explanations of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in hospital admissions

BACKGROUND

Discussing patient preferences for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is routine in hospital admission for older people. The way the conversation is conducted plays an important role for patient comprehension and the ethics of decision making.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to examine how CPR is explained in geriatric rehabilitation hospital admission interviews, focussing on circumstances in which physicians explain CPR and the content of these explanations.

METHOD

We recorded forty-three physician-patient admission interviews taking place in a hospital in French-speaking Switzerland, during which CPR was discussed. Data were analysed in French with thematic and conversation analysis, and the extracts used for publication were translated into English.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 83.7 years; 53.5% were admitted for rehabilitation after surgery or traumatism. CPR was explained in 53.8% of the conversations. Most explanations were brief and concerned the technical procedures, mentioning only rarely potential outcome. With one exception, medical indication and prognosis of CPR did not feature in these explanations. Explanations occurred either before the patient's answer (as part of the question about CPR preferences) or after the patient's answer, generated by patients' indecision, misunderstanding and by the need to clarify answers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The scarcity and simplicity of CPR explanations highlight a reluctance to have in-depth discussions and reflect the assumption that CPR does not need explaining. Providing patients with accurate information about the outcomes and risks of CPR is incremental for reaching informed decisions and patient-centred care.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Patients were involved in the data collection stage of the study.

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.

Communication Strategies in a Code Status Conversation

Despite the emphasis on engaging in shared decision-making for decisions involving life-prolonging interventions, there remains uncertainty about which communication strategies are best to achieve shared decision-making. In this paper, we present the communication strategies used in a code status discussion in a single case audio recorded as part of a research study of how patients and physicians make decisions about the plan of care during daily rounds. When presenting this case at various forums to demonstrate our findings, we found that some clinicians viewed the communication strategies used in the case as an exemplar of shared decision-making, whereas other clinicians viewed them as perpetuating paternalism. Given this polarized reaction, the purpose of this perspective paper is to examine the communication strategies used in the code status discussion and compare those strategies with our current conceptualization of shared decision-making and communication best practices.

Communication between healthcare professionals and relatives of patients approaching the end-of-life: A systematic review of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Effective communication between healthcare professionals and relatives of patients approaching the end-of-life is vital to ensure patients have a 'good death'. To improve communication, it is important to first identify how this is currently being accomplished.

AIM

To review qualitative evidence concerning characteristics of communication about prognosis and end-of-life care between healthcare professionals and relatives of patients approaching the end-of-life.

DESIGN

Qualitative systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42017065560) using thematic synthesis. Peer-reviewed, English language articles exploring the content of conversations and how participants communicated were included. No date restrictions were applied. Quality of included studies was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic database search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-one papers were included. Seven themes were identified: highlighting deterioration; involvement in decision-making, post-decision interactional work, tailoring, honesty and clarity, specific techniques for information delivery and roles of different healthcare professionals. Varied levels of family involvement in decision-making were reported. Healthcare professionals used strategies to aid understanding and collaborative decision-making, such as highlighting the patient's deterioration, referring to patient wishes and tailoring information delivery. Doctors were regarded as responsible for discussing prognosis and decision-making, and nurses for providing individualized care.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest training could provide healthcare professionals with these strategies to improve communication. Interventions such as question prompt lists could help relatives overcome barriers to involvement in decision-making. Further research is needed to understand communication with relatives in different settings and with different healthcare professionals.

Nurse-Family Communication During and After Family Meetings in the Intensive Care Unit

PURPOSE

To explore nurse-family communication during and after family meetings.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study in which 36 family meetings were audio-recorded in two intensive care units in an urban, community hospital.

METHODS

Data were analyzed using conversation analysis, a qualitative method.

FINDINGS

Nurses spoke during 10 (28%) of the family meetings. During the family meetings, nurses mostly self-selected to take a turn by interrupting a physician or family member, finishing their sentences, responding to questions, and, in one instance, asking a question. Nurses were mostly selected as the next speaker to address logistical issues, but were also asked questions. Most of nurses' turns were short and simple, and aimed to provide clarification, reassurance, and information regarding the patient's status. Immediately after the family meetings, nurses offered to provide family members clarification or gestures of empathy, but these offers were met with resistance from family members.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite calls for nurses to take a more active role in surrogate decision making, nurses minimally participated during family meetings. Empowering nurses to share their expertise is one solution for nurses to contribute during family meetings. Further research is needed to explore nurse-family bedside interactions to improve our understanding of the nurse's role in the surrogate decision-making process.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Findings from this exploration of nurse communication during and after family meetings can inform how nurses may best assist families during surrogate decision making in the intensive care unit.