Critical care physicians' approaches to negotiating with surrogate decision makers: a qualitative study

Defining Intensivists: A Retrospective Analysis of the Published Studies in the United States, 2010-2020

OBJECTIVES

The Society of Critical Care Medicine last published an intensivist definition in 1992. Subsequently, there have been many publications relating to intensivists. Our purpose is to assess how contemporary studies define intensivist physicians.

DESIGN

Systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2010-2020) for publication titles with the terms intensivist, and critical care or intensive care physician, specialist, or consultant. We included studies focusing on adult U.S. intensivists and excluded non-data-driven reports, non-U.S. publications, and pediatric or neonatal ICU reports. We aggregated the study title intensivist nomenclatures and parsed Introduction and Method sections to discern the text used to define intensivists. Fourteen parameters were found and grouped into five definitional categories: A) No definition, B) Background training and certification, C) Works in ICU, D) Staffing, and E) Database related. Each study was re-evaluated against these parameters and grouped into three definitional classes (single, multiple, or no definition). The prevalence of each parameter is compared between groups using Fisher exact test.

SETTING

U.S. adult ICUs and databases.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 657 studies, 105 (16%) met inclusion criteria. Within the study titles, 17 phrases were used to describe an intensivist; these were categorized as intensivist in 61 titles (58%), specialty intensivist in 30 titles (29%), and ICU/critical care physician in 14 titles (13%). Thirty-one studies (30%) used a single parameter (B-E) as their definition, 63 studies (60%) used more than one parameter (B-E) as their definition, and 11 studies (10%) had no definition (A). The most common parameter "Works in ICU" (C) in 52 studies (50%) was more likely to be used in conjunction with other parameters rather than as a standalone parameter (multiple parameters vs single-parameter studies; 73% vs 17%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistency of intensivist nomenclature or definitions in contemporary adult intensivist studies in the United States.

Navigating disagreement and conflict in the context of a brain-based definition of death

In this paper, we discuss situations in which disagreement or conflict arises in the critical care setting in relation to the determination of death by neurologic criteria, including the removal of ventilation and other somatic support. Given the significance of declaring a person dead for all involved, an overarching goal is to resolve disagreement or conflict in ways that are respectful and, if possible, relationship preserving. We describe four different categories of reasons for these disagreements or conflicts: 1) grief, unexpected events, and needing time to process these events; 2) misunderstanding; 3) loss of trust; and 4) religious, spiritual, or philosophical differences. Relevant aspects of the critical care setting are also identified and discussed. We propose several strategies for navigating these situations, appreciating that these may be tailored for a given care context and that multiple strategies may be helpfully used. We recommend that health institutions develop policies that outline the process and steps involved in addressing situations where there is ongoing or escalating conflict. These policies should include input from a broad range of stakeholders, including patients and families, as part of their development and review.

Reducing Moral Distress by Teaching Healthcare Providers the Concepts of Values Pluralism and Values Imposition

AbstractThere is a clear need for interventions that reduce moral distress among healthcare providers (HCPs), given the high prevalence of moral distress and the far-ranging negative consequences it has for them. Healthcare ethics consultants are frequently called upon to manage moral distress, especially among nursing staff. Recently, researchers have both broadened the definition of moral distress and demarcated subcategories of the phenomenon with the intent of creating more targeted and effective interventions. One of the most frequently occurring subcategories of moral distress in this new taxonomy has been labeled "moral-constraint distress," though scholars have argued that not all constraints on HCPs' moral agency are inappropriate given the often-competing healthcare values of patients, families, and clinical staff. To attempt to reduce the instances of moral distress in cases in which the constraints on HCPs' moral agency are justified, we propose an intervention that focuses on shifting the HCPs' "frame of reference" on moral-constraint distress, teaching HCPs how to distinguish unjustified and justified constraints on their moral agency. The anchors of this blueprint for reducing moral-constraint distress are the philosophical concepts of "values pluralism" and "values imposition." The rationale for this intervention is that, in situations where the constraint on moral agency is justified but the experience of moral distress could nevertheless be severe, the emphasis needs to be on helping the HCP to "think differently" rather than "act differently."

How doctors manage conflicts with families of critically ill patients during conversations about end-of-life decisions in neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care

PURPOSE

Intensive care is a stressful environment in which team-family conflicts commonly occur. If managed poorly, conflicts can have negative effects on all parties involved. Previous studies mainly investigated these conflicts and their management in a retrospective way. This study aimed to prospectively explore team-family conflicts, including its main topics, complicating factors, doctors' conflict management strategies and the effect of these strategies.

METHODS

Conversations between doctors in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care unit of a large university-based hospital and families of critically ill patients were audio-recorded from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was still in patients' best interest. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a qualitative deductive approach.

RESULTS

Team-family conflicts occurred in 29 out of 101 conversations (29%) concerning 20 out of 36 patients (56%). Conflicts mostly concerned more than one topic. We identified four complicating context- and/or family-related factors: diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, families' strong negative emotions, limited health literacy, and burden of responsibility. Doctors used four overarching strategies to manage conflicts, namely content-oriented, process-oriented, moral and empathic strategies. Doctors mostly used content-oriented strategies, independent of the intensive care setting. They were able to effectively address conflicts in most conversations. Yet, if they did not acknowledge families' cues indicating the existence of one or more complicating factors, conflicts were likely to linger on during the conversation.

CONCLUSION

This study underlines the importance of doctors tailoring their communication strategies to the concrete conflict topic(s) and to the context- and family-related factors which complicate a specific conflict.

What Does the Word "Treatable" Mean? Implications for Communication and Decision-Making in Critical Illness

OBJECTIVES

To explore how nonphysicians and physicians interpret the word "treatable" in the context of critical illness.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using in-depth interviews.

SETTING

One academic medical center.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-four nonphysicians (patients and community members) purposively sampled for variation in demographic characteristics and 24 physicians (attending physicians and trainees) purposively sampled from four specialties (critical care, palliative care, oncology, and surgery).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified two distinct concepts that participants used to interpret the word "treatable": 1) a "good news" concept, in which the word "treatable" conveys a positive message about a patient's future, thereby inspiring hope and encouraging further treatment and 2) an "action-oriented" concept, in which the word "treatable" conveys that physicians have an action or intervention available, but does not necessarily imply an improved prognosis or quality of life. The overwhelming majority of nonphysicians adopted the "good news" concept, whereas physicians almost exclusively adopted the "action-oriented" concept. For some nonphysicians, the word "treatable" conveyed a positive message about prognosis and/or further treatment, even when this contradicted previously stated negative information.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician use of the word "treatable" may lead patients or surrogates to derive unwarranted good news and false encouragement to pursue treatment, even when physicians have explicitly stated information to the contrary. Further work is needed to determine the extent to which the word "treatable" and its cognates contribute to widespread decision-making and communication challenges in critical care, including discordance about prognosis, misconceptions that palliative treatments are curative, and disputes about potentially inappropriate or futile treatment.

Physician Approaches to Conflict with Families Surrounding End-of-Life Decision-making in the Intensive Care Unit. A Qualitative Study

RATIONALE

Families of critically ill patients are often asked to make difficult decisions to pursue, withhold, or withdraw aggressive care or resuscitative measures, exercising "substituted judgment" from the imagined standpoint of the patient. Conflict may arise between intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and family members regarding the optimal course of care.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize how ICU physicians approach and manage conflict with surrogates regarding end-of-life decision-making.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 18 critical care physicians from four academically affiliated hospitals. Interview transcripts were analyzed using methods of grounded theory.

RESULTS

Physicians described strategies for engaging families to resolve conflict about end-of-life decision-making and tending to families' emotional health. Physicians commonly began by gauging family receptiveness to recommendations from the healthcare team. When faced with resistance to recommendations for less aggressive care, approaches ranged from deference to family wishes to various persuasive strategies designed to change families' minds, and some of those strategies may be counterproductive or harmful. The likelihood of deferring to family in the event of conflict was associated with the perceived sincerity of the family's "substituted judgment" and the ability to control patient pain and suffering. Physicians reported concern for the family's emotional needs and made efforts to alleviate the burden on families by assuming decision-making responsibility and expressing nonabandonment and commitment to the patient. Physicians were attentive to repairing damage to their relationship with the family in the aftermath of conflict. Finally, physicians described their own emotional responses to conflict, ranging from frustration and anxiety to satisfaction with successful resolution of conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care physicians described a complex and multilayered approach to physician-family conflict. The reported strategies offer insight into pragmatic approaches to achieving resolution of conflict while attending to both family and physician emotional impact, and they also highlight some potentially unhelpful or harmful behaviors that should be avoided. Further research is needed to evaluate how these strategies are perceived by families and other ICU clinicians and how they affect patient, family, and clinician outcomes.

Dimensions and Role-Specific Mediators of Surrogate Trust in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

In the ICU, discussions between clinicians and surrogate decision makers are often accompanied by conflict about a patient's prognosis or care plan. Trust plays a role in limiting conflict, but little is known about the determinants of trust in the ICU. We sought to identify the dimensions of trust and clinician behaviors conducive to trust formation in the ICU.

DESIGN

Prospective qualitative study.

SETTING

Medical ICU of a major urban university hospital.

SUBJECTS

Surrogate decision makers of intubated, mechanically ventilated patients in the medical ICU.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Semistructured interviews focused on surrogates' general experiences in the ICU and on their trust in the clinicians caring for the patient. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two reviewers. Constant comparison was used to identify themes pertaining to trust. Thirty surrogate interviews revealed five dimensions of trust in ICU clinicians: technical competence, communication, honesty, benevolence, and interpersonal skills. Most surrogates emphasized the role of nurses in trust formation, frequently citing their technical competence. Trust in physicians was most commonly related to honesty and the quality of their communication with surrogates.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to improve trust in the ICU should be role-specific, since surrogate expectations are different for physicians and nurses with regard to behaviors relevant to trust. Further research is needed to confirm our findings and explore the impact of trust modification on clinician-family conflict.

To treat or not to treat: withholding treatment in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Decisions to limit life-sustaining therapy (DLLST) in the ICU are used to uphold patients' autonomy, protect them from non-beneficial treatment and fairly distribute resources. The institution of these decisions is complex, with a variety of qualitative and quantitative data published. This review aims to summarize the main issues and review the contemporary research findings on this subject.

RECENT FINDINGS

DLLST are used in a variety of clinical and non-clinical situations, before and after ICU admission, and are not always part of end-of-life management. There are many dilemmas and barriers that beset their institution. Many ICU physicians feel inadequately trained to carry them out and they are frequently a source of conflict. A variety of strategies have been examined to improve their institution, including advanced directives, intensive communication strategies and family information leaflets, many of which have improved patient and family-centred outcomes.

SUMMARY

There are a number of uncertainties that beset the institution of DLLST in the ICU; however, a variety of research has improved our ability to understand and implement them. This review frames some of the dilemmas and discusses some of the procedural strategies that have been used to improve outcomes.

Investigating conflict in ICUs-is the clinicians' perspective enough?

OBJECTIVE

Most studies have assessed conflict between clinicians and surrogate decision makers in ICUs from only clinicians' perspectives. It is unknown if surrogates' perceptions differ from clinicians'. We sought to determine the degree of agreement between physicians and surrogates about conflict and to identify predictors of physician-surrogate conflict.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Four ICUs of two hospitals in San Francisco, California.

PATIENTS

Two hundred and thirty surrogate decision makers and 100 physicians of 175 critically ill patients.

MEASUREMENTS

Questionnaires addressing participants' perceptions of whether there was physician-surrogate conflict, as well as attitudes and preferences about clinician-surrogate communication; κ scores to quantify physician-surrogate concordance about the presence of conflict; and hierarchical multivariate modeling to determine predictors of conflict.

MAIN RESULTS

Either the physician or surrogate identified conflict in 63% of cases. Physicians were less likely to perceive conflict than surrogates (27.8% vs 42.3%; p = 0.007). Agreement between physicians and surrogates about conflict was poor (κ = 0.14). Multivariable analysis with surrogate-assessed conflict as the outcome revealed that higher levels of surrogates' satisfaction with physicians' bedside manner were associated with lower odds of conflict (odds ratio, 0.75 per 1 point increase in satisfaction; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96). Multivariable analysis with physician-assessed conflict as the outcome revealed that the surrogate having felt discriminated against in the healthcare setting was associated with higher odds of conflict (odds ratio, 17.5; 95% CI, 1.6-190.1) while surrogates' satisfaction with physicians' bedside manner was associated with lower odds of conflict (0-10 scale; odds ratio, 0.76 per 1 point increase; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Conflict between physicians and surrogates is common in ICUs. There is little agreement between physicians and surrogates about whether physician-surrogate conflict has occurred. Further work is needed to develop reliable and valid methods to assess conflict. In the interim, future studies should assess conflict from the perspective of both clinicians and surrogates.

The Influence of Surrogate Decision Makers on Clinical Decision Making for Critically Ill Adults

PURPOSE

Intensive care unit patients rarely have decisional capacity and often surrogates make clinical decisions on their behalf. Little is known about how surrogate characteristics may influence end-of-life decision making for these patients. This study sought to determine how surrogate characteristics impact physicians' approach to end-of-life decision making.

METHODS

From March 2011 to August 2011, a survey was fielded to 1000 randomly sampled critical care physicians using a modified Dillman approach. The survey included a hypothetical vignette to examine how physicians' approach varied based on patient age, patient-surrogate relationship, surrogate-staff relationship, basis for surrogate's stated preferences, and surrogate's understanding of patient's condition. Outcomes included physicians' beliefs regarding (1) appropriateness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); (2) appropriate locus of decision making for the patient; (3) degree to which a physician would try to influence a surrogate if disagreement was present; and (4) physician strategies to discussing end-of-life with surrogates.

RESULTS

Of 922 eligible physicians, 608 (66%) participated. Across all vignettes, CPR was felt to be less appropriate and surrogates less likely to be given priority with an older rather than younger patient (15% vs 63% and 50% vs 65%, both P values <.001). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was considered less appropriate when the surrogate-patient relationship was not close (34% vs 44%, P = .03) and the surrogate's understanding was poor (34% vs 43%, P = .05). No other surrogate characteristics examined yielded statistically significant associations.

CONCLUSION

Some surrogate characteristics may modify clinicians' beliefs and practices regarding end-of-life care, suggesting the nuances of the surrogate-physician relationship and clinical decision making for critically ill patients.

Recommendations to limit life support: a national survey of critical care physicians

RATIONALE

There is debate about whether physicians should routinely provide patient surrogates with recommendations about limiting life support.

OBJECTIVES

To explore physicians' self-reported practices and attitudes.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, stratified survey of 1,000 randomly selected US critical care physicians was mailed. We included a vignette to experimentally examine how surrogate desire for a recommendation and physician agreement with the surrogate modified whether physicians would provide a recommendation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Proportion of respondents reporting they routinely provide surrogates with a recommendation and how responses varied based on vignette characteristics. A total of 608 (66%) of 922 eligible physicians participated. Approximately one (22%) in five reported always providing surrogates with a recommendation, whereas 1 (11%) in 10 reported rarely or never doing so. Almost all respondents reported comfort making recommendations (92%) and viewed them as appropriate (93%). Most also viewed recommendations as a critical care physician's duty (87%) and did not view them as unduly influential (80%). Approximately two-fifths (41%) believed recommendations were only appropriate if sought by surrogates. In response to the vignettes, nearly all respondents (91%) provided a recommendation when the surrogate requested a recommendation and the physician agreed with the surrogate's likely decision. Physicians were less likely to provide an unwanted recommendation, both when physicians agreed (29%) and disagreed with the surrogate's likely decision (44%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variation among physicians' self-reported use of recommendations to surrogates of critically ill adults. Surrogates' desires for recommendations and physicians' agreement with surrogates' likely decisions may have important influence on whether recommendations are provided.