Physician Self-assessment of Shared Decision-making in Simulated Intensive Care Unit Family Meetings

IMPORTANCE

Professional guidelines have identified key communication skills for shared decision-making for critically ill patients, but it is unclear how intensivists interpret and implement them.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the self-evaluations of intensivists reviewing transcripts of their own simulated intensive care unit family meetings with the evaluations of trained expert colleagues.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A posttrial web-based survey of intensivists was conducted between January and March 2019. Intensivists reviewed transcripts of simulated intensive care unit family meetings in which they participated in a previous trial from October 2016 to November 2017. In the follow-up survey, participants identified if and how they performed key elements of shared decision-making for an intensive care unit patient at high risk of death. Transcript texts that intensivists self-identified as examples of key communication skills recommended by their professional society's policy on shared decision-making were categorized.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Comparison of the evaluations of 2 blinded nonparticipant intensivist colleagues with the self-reported responses of the intensivists.

RESULTS

Of 116 eligible intensivists, 76 (66%) completed the follow-up survey (mean [SD] respondent age was 43.1 [8.1] years; 72% were male). Sixty-one of 76 intensivists reported conveying prognosis; however, blinded colleagues who reviewed the deidentified transcripts were less likely to report that prognosis had been conveyed than intensivists reviewing their own transcripts (42 of 61; odds ratio, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.44; P < .001). When reviewing their own transcript, intensivists reported presenting many choices, with the most common choice being code status. They also provided a variety of recommendations, with the most common being to continue the current treatment plan. Thirty-three participants (43%) reported that they offered care focused on comfort, but blinded colleagues rated only 1 (4%) as explaining this option in a clear manner.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, guidelines for shared decision-making and end of life care were interpreted by intensivists in disparate ways. In the absence of training or personalized feedback, self-assessment of communication skills may not be interpreted consistently.

Effect of Intensivist Communication in a Simulated Setting on Interpretation of Prognosis Among Family Members of Patients at High Risk of Intensive Care Unit Admission: A Randomized Trial

Importance

Discordance about prognosis between a patient's health care decision-making surrogate and the treating intensivist is common in the intensive care unit (ICU). Empowering families, friends, and caregivers of patients who are critically ill to make informed decisions about care is important, but it is unclear how best to communicate prognostic information to surrogates when a patient is expected to die.

Objective

To determine whether family members, who are often health care decision-making surrogates, interpret intensivists as being more optimistic when questions about prognosis in the ICU are answered indirectly.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This web-based randomized trial was conducted between September 27, 2019, and October 17, 2019, among a national sample of adult children, spouses, partners, or siblings of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were receiving long-term oxygen therapy. Participants were shown video vignettes depicting an intensivist answering a standardized question about the prognosis of a patient at high risk of death on day 3 of ICU admission. Participants were excluded if they had worked as a physician, nurse, or advanced health care practitioner. Data were analyzed from October 18, 2019, to November 12, 2019.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to view 1 of 4 intensivist communication styles in response to the question "What do you think is most likely to happen?": (1) a direct response (control), (2) an indirect response comparing the patient's condition with that of other patients, (3) an indirect response describing the patient's deteriorating physiological condition, or (4) redirection to a discussion of the patient's values and goals.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participant responses to 2 questions: (1) "If you had to guess, what do you think the doctor thinks is the chance that your loved one will survive this hospitalization?" and (2) "What do you think are the chances that your loved one will survive this hospitalization?" answered using a 0% to 100% probability scale.

Results

Among 302 participants (median [interquartile range] age, 49 [38-59] years; 204 [68%] women) included in the trial, 165 (55%) were adult children of the individual with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; 77 participants were randomized to view a direct response, 77 participants were randomized to view an indirect response referencing other patients, 68 participants were randomized to view an indirect response referencing physiological condition, and 80 participants were randomized to view a redirection response. Compared with participants who viewed a direct response, participants who viewed an indirect response referencing other patients (β = 10 [95% CI, 1-19]; P = .03), physiological condition (β = 10 [95% CI, 0-19]; P = .04), or redirection to a discussion of the patient's values and goals (β = 19 [95% CI, 10-28]; P < .001) perceived the intensivist to have a significantly more optimistic prognostic estimate.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that family members interpret indirect or redirection responses to questions about prognosis in the ICU setting as more optimistic than direct responses.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04239209.

Candida and cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a case of lead and native aortic valve endocarditis and literature review

Use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED), including permanent pacemakers (PPM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), has increased dramatically over the past two decades. Most CIED infections are caused by staphylococci. Fungal causes are rare and their prognosis is poor. To our knowledge, there has not been a previously reported case of multifocal Candida endocarditis involving both a native left-sided heart valve and a CIED lead. Here, we report the case of a 70-year-old patient who presented with nausea, vomiting, and generalised fatigue, and was found to have Candida glabrata endocarditis involving both a native aortic valve and right atrial ICD lead. We review the literature and summarise four additional cases of CIED-associated Candida endocarditis published from 2009 to 2014, updating a previously published review of cases prior to 2009. We additionally review treatment guidelines and discuss management of CIED-associated Candida endocarditis.

Near fatal case of mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx induced interstitial lung disease and a review of the primary literature

•Mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx should be recognized as a cause of drug-induced interstitial lung disease (ILD).•Radiographic manifestations of mirvetuximab soravtansine-gyn induced ILD include organizing pneumonia pattern.•Interstitial lung disease related to mirvetuximab soravtansine-gyn can cause high morbidity.•Corticosteroids are commonly used in drug-induced interstitial lung disease and should be considered when encountering ILD related to mirvetuximab.•Changes to manufacturer dosing guidelines for grade 1 pneumonitis related to mirvetuximab soravtansine-gyn need to be considered.

Predictors of Medical Mistrust Among Surrogate Decision-Makers of Patients in the ICU at High Risk of Death: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Medical mistrust may worsen communication between ICU surrogate decision-makers and intensivists. The prevalence of and risk factors for medical mistrust among surrogate decision-makers are not known.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the potential sociodemographic risk factors for high medical mistrust among surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients at high risk of death?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In this pilot cross-sectional study conducted at a single academic medical center between August 2022 and August 2023, adult patients admitted to the medical ICU and their surrogate decision-makers were enrolled. All patients were incapacitated at enrollment with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores of ≥ 7 or required mechanical ventilation with vasopressor infusion. Surrogate decision-maker sociodemographic characteristics were age, race, sex, education, relationship to the patient, employment, prior exposure to a loved one transitioning to hospice or comfort-focused care, and religiousness. The primary outcome was surrogate decision-maker medical mistrust, measured using the Medical Mistrust Multiformat Scale. Multiple linear regression was used to determine sociodemographic characteristics associated with higher medical mistrust.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients and their surrogate decision-makers were enrolled during the study period, surpassing our goal of 30 pairs and indicating recruitment feasibility. Mean ± SD surrogate age was 53.8 ± 14.5 years, 24 surrogates were female, and mean medical mistrust score was 17.1 ± 5.4. Race was associated with medical mistrust, with Black participants showing higher medical mistrust compared with White participants (β =10.21; 95% CI, 3.40-17.02; P = .010). Religiousness was associated with lower medical mistrust (β = -2.94; 95% CI, -4.43 to -1.41; P = .003). Prior exposure to hospice or comfort-focused care was associated with higher medical mistrust (β = 7.06; 95% CI, 1.21-12.91; P = .025).

INTERPRETATION

We found that recruiting ICU surrogates and measuring medical mistrust within 48 h of ICU admission was feasible. Several surrogate sociodemographic characteristics were associated with changes in medical mistrust. These preliminary findings will inform the design of future studies.