Toward Shared Decision Making at the End of Life in Intensive Care Units

Abstract

Background: In North America, families generally wish to be involved in end-of-life decisions when the patient cannot participate, yet little is known about the extent to which shared decision making occurs in intensive care units. Methods: We audiotaped 51 physician-family conferences about major end-of-life treatment decisions at 4 hospitals from August 1, 2000, to July 31, 2002. We measured shared decision making using a previously validated instrument to assess the following 10 elements: discussing the nature of the decision, describing treatment alternatives, discussing the pros and cons of the choices, discussing uncertainty, assessing family understanding, eliciting patient values and preferences, discussing the family's role in decision making, assessing the need for input from others, exploring the context of the decision, and eliciting the family's opinion about the treatment decision. We used a mixed-effects regression model to determine predictors of shared decision making and to evaluate whether higher levels of shared decision making were associated with greater family satisfaction. Results: Only 2% (1/51) of decisions met all 10 criteria for shared decision making. The most frequently addressed elements were the nature of the decision (100%) and the context of the decision to be made (92%). The least frequently addressed elements were the family's role in decision making (31%) and an assessment of the family's understanding of the decision (25%). In multivariate analysis, lower family educational level was associated with less shared decision making (partial correlation coefficient, 0.34; standardized ␤, .3; P =.02). Higher levels of shared decision making were associated with greater family satisfaction with communication (partial correlation coefficient, 0.15; standardized ␤, .09; P=.03). Conclusions: Shared decision making about end-oflife treatment choices was often incomplete, especially among less educated families. Higher levels of shared decision making were associated with greater family satisfaction. Shared decision making may be an important area for quality improvement in intensive care units.

Why Do Patients Agree to a “Do Not Resuscitate” or “Full Code” Order? Perspectives of Medical Inpatients

“…Advance Care Planning may help reduce this negative response; by normalizing the subject and raising it before an acute illness, physicians may help reduce anxiety and shock when it is raised during a deterioration 18,23 .Both FC and DNR patients emphasized the importance of honesty, clarity, and sensitivity when discussing this issue. Previous studies have highlighted the deficiencies of resuscitation conversations 7,[24][25][26] , and others have proposed techniques to improve them 11,19,25,[27][28][29] .…”

“…We know little about these conversations-only that physicians and patients feel uncomfortable with them [2][3][4] , and that they are highly variable in terms of timing 5 , content [6][7][8][9] , and style 10,11 . As a result (and understandably), many physicians do not know their patients' preferences for resuscitation 1 , and many patients have a very poor understanding of their own resuscitation order 2,12 .…”

A Prognostic Model for 6-Month Mortality in Elderly Survivors of Critical Illness

“…45 While our model should not be used as an adjunct to clinical decision-making until it is further evaluated, it could potentially increase clinicians' confi dence in discussing prognosis and the need for hospice care. 46 By informing discussions of goals of care, our model could indirectly infl uence whether a patient enrolls in hospice upon discharge from the hospital. Prior studies such as SUPPORT have failed to demonstrate such an effect of information during the ICU stay, 25 but these patients, their families, and their providers may use this information differently later in the patient's clinical course after extensive efforts have been made on the patient's behalf, when recovery has stalled, and predicted outcome is poor.…”

Organ Donation After Euthanasia: A Pure Act of Altruism Fulfilling the Patient’s Last Wish

“…The decision to request euthanasia when combined with organ donation is indisputably a result of shared decision making, after multiple conversations between the patient and the treating physician 5. Not respecting the six core functions of patient–clinician communication or not using the “informed” type of decision‐making process could result in a breach of trust, and the patient could potentially and understandably withdraw from the procedure 6.…”