The "window of opportunity:" helping parents make the most difficult decision they will ever face using an informed non-dissent model

Ethical Consequences of Technological Mediation on Parental Decision-Making Experiences in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

The neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is a morally charged space in which parents may be confronted with difficult decisions about the treatment of their newborns, decisions often complicated and created by the increasing use of technologies. This paper adopts a postphenomenological approach to explore the ethical consequences of technological mediation on parental treatment decision-making in the NICU. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of children who received invasive technological support in the NICU to better understand how they made treatment decisions or decisions about specific interventions during their child's hospitalization. The findings suggest that technological mediation-or the various ways in which humans can interact with their world via technologies-contributes to experiences of ambiguity, ambivalence, and alienation in parental decision-making. The ambiguity of invasive NICU technologies can create uncertainty in a decision, which can then lead to internal ambivalence about which decision to make. Ultimately, this ambiguity and ambivalence may lead to alienation from one's child, as parents are disconnected physically and emotionally from the decision and thus their child. Articulating the effects of technological mediation on parental decision-making is a key step in addressing decisional conflict in neonatal intensive care settings and better supporting parents in their decision-making roles.

Characterization of Death in Neonatal Encephalopathy in the Hypothermia Era

This study aimed to characterize the circumstances of death in encephalopathic neonates treated with therapeutic hypothermia. Patients who died after or during treatment with therapeutic hypothermia between 2007-2014 were identified. Patient circumstance of death was characterized using an established paradigm. Thirty-one of 229 patients died (14%) at a median of 3 days of life. Most who died were severely encephalopathic on examination (90%) and had severely abnormal electroencephalographic (EEG) findings (87%). All those who had magnetic resonance images (n = 13) had evidence of moderate-severe brain injury; 6 had near-total brain injury. Cooling was discontinued prematurely in 61% of patients. Most patients (90%) were physiologically stable at the time of death; 81% died following elective extubation for quality of life considerations. Three patients (10%) died following withholding or removal of artificial hydration and nutrition. Characterization of death in additional cohorts is needed to identify differences in decision making practices over time and between centers.

Shared Decision Making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making is endorsed by critical care organizations; however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills.

DESIGN

The American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society were included in the statement.

MAIN RESULTS

Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable, including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate.

Default options in the ICU: widely used but insufficiently understood

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Default options dramatically influence the behavior of decision makers and may serve as effective decision support tools in the ICU. Their use in medicine has increased in an effort to improve efficiency, reduce errors, and harness the potential of healthcare technology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Defaults often fall short of their predicted influence when employed in critical care settings as quality improvement interventions. Investigations reporting the use of defaults are often limited by variations in the relative effect across sites. Preimplementation experiments and long-term monitoring studies are lacking.

SUMMARY

Defaults in the ICU may help or harm patients and clinical efficiency depending on their format and use. When constructing and encountering defaults, providers should be aware of their powerful and complex influences on decision making. Additional evaluations of the appropriate creation of healthcare defaults and their resulting intended and unintended consequences are needed.

What parents want from doctors in end-of-life decision-making for children

OBJECTIVE

End-of-life decision-making is difficult for everyone involved, as many studies have shown. Within this complexity, there has been little information on how parents see the role of doctors in end-of-life decision-making for children. This study aimed to examine parents' views and experiences of end-of-life decision-making.

DESIGN

A qualitative method with a semistructured interview design was used.

SETTING

Parent participants were living in the community.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five bereaved parents.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Parents reported varying roles taken by doctors: being the provider of information without opinion; giving information and advice as to the decision that should be taken; and seemingly being the decision maker for the child. The majority of parents found their child's doctor enabled them to be the ultimate decision maker for their child, which was what they very clearly wanted to be, and consequently enabled them to exercise their parental autonomy. Parents found it problematic when doctors took over decision-making. A less frequently reported, yet significant role for doctors was to affirm decisions after they had been made by parents. Other important aspects of the doctor's role were to provide follow-up support and referral.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the role that doctors take in end-of-life decisions, and the subsequent impact of that role from the perspective of parents can form the basis of better informed clinical practice.

The 'window of opportunity' for death after severe brain injury: family experiences

This article builds on and develops the emerging bioethics literature on the 'window of opportunity' for allowing death by withholding or withdrawing treatment. Our findings are drawn from in-depth interviews with 26 people (from 14 different families) with severely brain injured relatives. These interviews were specifically selected from a larger study on the basis of interviewees' reports that their relatives would not have wanted to be kept alive in their current condition (e.g. in vegetative or minimally conscious states). Our analysis tracks the decision-making processes that have led to the situation in which life-sustaining treatments continue to be delivered to these patients--maintaining them in a state that some families describe as a 'fate worse than death'. We show how the medico-legal 'window of opportunity' for allowing the patient to die structures family experience and fails to deliver optimal outcomes for patients. We end with some suggestions for change.