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

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.

End-of-life decision-making in critically ill old patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019

BACKGROUND

There are few studies on the differences in end-of-life decisions making in critically ill patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to investigate the independent factors that predicted the decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments (LST) in critically ill patients and if these decisions were based on different variables for critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those for critically ill patients with other diagnoses in a Swedish intensive care unit.

METHODS

This observational pilot study was performed at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. Patients ≥65 years were included from 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2021. The association between a decision to limit LST and a priori selected variables including sex, age, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3), Clinical Frailty Scale ≥4, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Body Mass Index, living at home, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed using a univariate and multivariable logistic regression model and presented as odds ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

There were 394 patients included in this study, 131 in the non-COVID-19 group and 263 in the COVID-19 group. For the non-COVID-19 cohort, the univariate analysis demonstrated that age and SAPS 3 were significantly associated with the decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments, and this association remained in the multivariable analysis, with odds ratios of 1.10 (1.03-1.19) p = .009 and 1.06 (1.03-1.10) p < .001, respectively. For the COVID-19 cohort, the univariate analysis indicated that age, SAPS 3, and Charlson comorbidity index were significantly associated with the decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments. However, in multivariable analysis, only the Charlson comorbidity index remained independently associated with the decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments, with an odds ratio of 1.26 (1.07-1.49), p = .006.

CONCLUSION

Decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments were based on other variables for the critically ill COVID-19 cohort compared to those for the critically ill non-COVID-19 cohort. Further studies are warranted to forge a common path for ethical end-of-life decision-making in critically ill patients.

To withhold resuscitation - The Swedish system's rules and challenges

The aim of this article is to describe current Swedish legalisation, clinical practice and future perspectives on the medical ethical decision "Do-Not-Attempt-Cardio-Pulmonary-Resuscitation" (DNACPR) in relation to prevent futile resuscitation of in-hospital cardiac arrests. Sweden has about 2200 in-hospital cardiac arrests yearly, with an overall 30-day survival ratio of 35%. This population is highly selected, although the frequency of DNACPR orders for hospitalized patients is unknown, resuscitation is initiated in only 6-13% of patients dying in Swedish hospitals. According to Swedish law and although shared decision making is sought, the physician is the ultimate decision-maker and consultation with the patient, her relatives and another licenced health care practitioner is mandatory. According to studies, these consultations is documented in only about 10% of the decisions. Clinicians lack tools to assess risk of IHCA, tools to predict outcome and we are not good at guessing patients own will. Future directives for clinical practice need to address difficulties for physicians in making decisions as well as the timing of decisions. We conclude that the principles in Swedish law needs to be fulfilled by a more systematic approach to documentation and planning of meetings between patients, relatives and colleagues.

Psychological Determinants of Physician Variation in End-of-Life Treatment Intensity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Physicians treating similar patients in similar care-delivery contexts vary in the intensity of life-extending care provided to their patients at the end-of-life. Physician psychological propensities are an important potential determinant of this variability, but the pertinent literature has yet to be synthesized.

OBJECTIVE

Conduct a review of qualitative studies to explicate whether and how psychological propensities could result in some physicians providing more intensive treatment than others.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in five major electronic databases-MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley)-to identify eligible studies (earliest available date to August 2021). Eligibility criteria included examination of a physician psychological factor as relating to end-of-life care intensity in advanced life-limiting illness. Findings from individual studies were pooled and synthesized using thematic analysis, which identified common, prevalent themes across findings.

RESULTS

The search identified 5623 references, of which 28 were included in the final synthesis. Seven psychological propensities were identified as influencing physician judgments regarding whether and when to withhold or de-escalate life-extending treatments resulting in higher treatment intensity: (1) professional identity as someone who extends lifespan, (2) mortality aversion, (3) communication avoidance, (4) conflict avoidance, (5) personal values favoring life extension, (6) decisional avoidance, and (7) over-optimism.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological propensities could influence physician judgments regarding whether and when to de-escalate life-extending treatments. Future work should examine how individual and environmental factors combine to create such propensities, and how addressing these propensities could reduce physician-attributed variation in end-of-life care intensity.

Physician emotional experience of communication and decision making with end-of-life patients: qualitative studies systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To explore the emotional experience of physicians in acute settings when encountering end-of-life conversations and decision making.

METHOD

Thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Medline, PsychInfo, PubMed, BNI and CIAHL were searched from 1985 to 2021 for studies published in English. Data extraction was informed by a framework created for assessing methodological quality by Polanin, Pigott, Espelage and Grotpeter (2019) and adapted by Draper et al. (2019).

RESULTS

Of 8429 papers identified, 17 were selected for review. Two themes containing 10 subthemes described the emotional and psychological factors impacting the experience of end-of-life care, namely: a tension between desire and ability to communicate end-of-life news, and a conflict of hiding versus revealing self across several practical and emotional contexts.

CONCLUSION

Medical training is only a small factor in how well a person copes with end-of-life care and may sometimes feed negative appraisals . Lack of support from senior colleagues, fear of criticism and a sense of perceived failure were linked to lower self-efficacy in end-of-life care. Beyond learning practical skills, physicians benefit from understanding the psychological factors impacting their experience and in building self-efficacy, and observing senior colleagues effectively process strong and difficult emotions.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Promoting personal reflection and sharing of the experiences encountered in end-of-life care, especially modelled from senior colleagues, may contribute to improvements in competence and reduce the impact of heroism, feelings of failure and avoidance in practice.

Palliative Care Principles and Anesthesiology Clinical Practice: Current Perspectives

Background

Palliative care is a person-centered approach aiming to relieve patient’s health-related suffering and it is often needed when caring for critically ill patients to manage symptoms and identify goals of care.

Aim

To describe the integration of palliative care principles in anesthesiology clinical practice, within and outside the ICU and to analyze the additional challenges that COVID-19 pandemic is posing in this context.

Methods

For the purpose of this review, PubMed database was searched for studies concerning palliative care and end of life care, in contexts involving anesthesiologists and intensivists, published in the last 5 years.

Results

Anesthesiologists and intensivists integrate palliative care within their daily practice providing symptoms management as well as family counseling. High-quality communicational skills are fundamental for anesthesiologists and intensivists especially when interfacing with surrogate decision makers in the ICU or with patients in the preoperative setting while discussing goals of care. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged many aspects of palliative care delivery: reduced family presence within the ICU, communication with families through phone calls or video calls, patient–physician relationship mediated by bulky personal protective equipment and healthcare workers physical and psychological distress due to the increased workload and limitations in resources are some of the most evident.

Conclusion

Anesthesiologists and intensivists are increasingly facing challenging clinical situations where principles and practice of palliative care have to be applied. In this sense, increasing knowledge on palliative care and providing specific training would allow to deliver high-quality symptom management, family counseling and end of life guidance in critical care settings. COVID-19 pandemic sets additional difficulties to palliative care delivery.

Reasons for physician-related variability in end-of-life decision-making in intensive care

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that the individual physician is the main factor influencing variability in end-of-life decision-making in intensive care units. End-of-life decisions are complex and should be adapted to each patient. Physician-related variability is problematic as it may result in unequal assessments that affect patient outcomes. The primary aim of this study was to investigate factors contributing to physician-related variability in end-of-life decision-making.

METHOD

This is a qualitative substudy of a previously conducted study. In-depth thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with 19 critical care specialists from five different Swedish intensive care units was performed. Interviews took place between 1 February 2017 and 31 May 2017.

RESULTS

Factors influencing physician-related variability consisted of different assessment of patient preferences, as well as intensivists' personality and values. Personality was expressed mainly through pace and determination in the decision-making process. Personal prejudices appeared in decisions, but few respondents had personally witnessed this. Avoidance of criticism and conflicts as well as individual strategies for emotional coping were other factors that influenced physician-related variability. Many respondents feared criticism for making their assessments, and the challenging nature of end-of-life decision-making lead to avoidance as well as emotional stress.

CONCLUSION

Variability in end-of-life decision-making is an important topic that needs further investigation. It is imperative that such variability be acknowledged and addressed in a more formal and transparent manner. The ethical issues faced by intensivists have recently been compounded by the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating in profound terms the importance of the topic.