BACKGROUND Several organizations have underscored the crucial need for patient-centered decision tools to enhance shared decision-making in advanced heart failure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the decision-making process and informational and decisional needs of patients and their caregivers regarding left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. METHODS In-depth, structured interviews with LVAD patients, candidates and caregivers (spouse, family members) (n = 45) were conducted. We also administered a Decisional Regret Scale. RESULTS Participants reported LVAD decision-making to be quick and reflexive (n = 30), and deferred heavily to clinicians (n = 22). They did not perceive themselves as having a real choice (n = 28). The 2 most prevalent informational domains that participants identified were lifestyle issues (23 items), followed by technical (drive-line, battery) issues (14 items). Participants easily and clearly identified their values: life extension; family; and mobility. Participants reported the need to meet other patients and caregivers before device placement (n = 31), and to have an involved caregiver (n = 28) to synthesize information. Some participants demonstrated a lack of clarity regarding transplant probability: 9 of 15 patients described themselves as on a transplant trajectory, yet 7 of these were destination therapy patients. Finally, we found that decisional regret scores were low (1.307). CONCLUSIONS Informed consent and shared-decision making should: (a) help patients offered highly invasive technologies for life-threatening disease get past the initial “anything to avoid thinking about death” reaction and make a more informed decision; (b) clarify transplant status; and (c) focus on lifestyle and technical issues, as patients have the most informational needs in these domains.

This study identified the ways in which moral distress manifests across critical care disciplines in different ICU environments. Our results have potential implications for patient care. First, when clinicians alter the content of their goals-of-care conversations with patients or families to accommodate intrateam discordance (as part of the "pas-de-deux"), subsequent decisions regarding medical care may be compromised. Second, when different team members respond differently to the same case-with nurses becoming more emotionally invested and physicians becoming more withdrawn-communication gaps are likely to occur at critical moral distress junctures. Finally, our findings suggest that physicians and any healthcare professionals in surgical units might be susceptible to unmitigated moral distress because they report less engagement in constructive behaviors to recalibrate their distress.

No abstract