Dataset Information

Relatives' knowledge of decision making in intensive care.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aim

The law on consent has changed in Scotland with the introduction of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. This Act introduces the concept of proxy consent in Scotland. Many patients in intensive care are unable to participate in the decision making process because of their illness and its treatment. It is normal practice to provide relatives with information on the patient's condition, treatment, and prognosis as a substitute for discussion directly with the patient. The relatives of intensive care patients appeared to believe that they already had the right to consent on behalf of an incapacitated adult. The authors' aim was to assess the level of knowledge among relatives of intensive care patients of both the old and new law using a structured questionnaire.

Methods

The next of kin of 100 consecutive patients completed a structured questionnaire. Each participant had the questions read to them and their answers recorded. Patients were not involved in the study.

Results

Few (10%) were aware of the changes. Most (88%) thought that they previously could give consent on behalf of an incapacitated adult. Only 13% have ever discussed the preferences for life sustaining treatment with the patient but 84% felt that they could accurately represent the patient's wishes.

Conclusions

There appeared to be a lack of public awareness of the impending changes. The effectiveness of the Act at improving the care of the mentally incapacitated adult will depend largely on how successful it is at encouraging communication and decision making in advance of incapacity occurring.

SUBMITTER: Booth MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1733945 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Little is known about how characteristics of particular clinical decisions influence decision-making preferences by patients or their surrogates. A better understanding of the factors underlying preferences is essential to improve the quality of shared decision making. Objective:To identify the characteristics of particular decisions that are associated with parents' preferences for family- vs medical team-centered decision making across the spectrum of clinical decisions that arise in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional survey assessed parents' preferences for parent- vs medical team-centered decision making across 16 clinical decisions, along with parents' assessments of 7 characteristics of those decisions. Respondents included 136 parents of infants in 1 of 3 academically affiliated hospital NICUs in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from January 7 to July 8, 2016. Respondents represented a wide range of educational levels, employment status, and household income but were predominantly female (109 [80.1%]), white (68 [50.0%]) or African American (53 [39.0%]), and married (81 of 132 responding [61.4%]). Main Outcomes and Measures:Preferences for parent-centered decision making. For each decision characteristic (eg, urgency), multivariable analyses tested whether middle and high levels of that characteristic (compared with low levels) were associated with a preference for parent-centered decision making, resulting in 2 odds ratios (ORs) per decision characteristic. Results:Among the 136 respondents (109 women [80.1%] and 27 men [19.9%]; median age, 30 years [range, 18-43 years]), preferences for parent-centered decision making were positively associated with decisions that involved big-picture goals (middle OR, 2.01 [99% CI, 0.83-4.86]; high OR, 3.38 [99% CI, 1.48-7.75]) and that had the potential to harm the infant (middle OR, 1.32 [99% CI, 0.84-2.08]; high OR, 2.62 [99% CI, 1.67-4.11]). In contrast, preferences for parent-centered decision making were inversely associated with the following 4 decision characteristics: technical decisions (middle OR, 0.82 [99% CI, 0.45-1.52]; high OR, 0.48 [99% CI, 0.25-0.93]), the potential to benefit the infant (middle OR, 0.42 [99% CI, 0.16-1.05]; high OR, 0.21 [99% CI, 0.08-0.52]), requires medical expertise (middle OR, 0.48 [99% CI, 0.22-1.05]; high OR, 0.21 [99% CI, 0.10-0.48]), and a high level of urgency (middle OR, 0.47 [99% CI, 0.24-0.92]; high OR, 0.42 [99% CI, 0.22-0.83]). Conclusions and Relevance:Preferences for parent-centered vs medical team-centered decision making among parents of infants in the NICU may vary systematically by the characteristics of particular clinical decisions. Incorporating this variation into shared decision making and endorsing models that allow parents to cede control to physicians in appropriate clinical circumstances might improve the quality and outcomes of medical decisions.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundIn the intensive care unit (ICU) relatives play a crucial role as surrogate decision-makers, since most patients cannot communicate due to their illness and treatment. Their level of involvement in decision-making can affect their psychological well-being. During the COVID-19 pandemic, relatives' involvement probably changed. We aim to investigate relatives' involvement in decision-making in the ICU before and during the pandemic and their experiences and preferences in this regard.MethodsA mixed-methods study among relatives of ICU patients admitted to an ICU before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. Relatives in six ICUs completed a questionnaire (n = 329), including two items on decision-making. These were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses. Subsequently, relatives (n = 24) were interviewed about their experiences and preferences regarding decision-making. Thematic analysis was used for analysing the qualitative data.ResultsNearly 55% of the relatives indicated they were at least occasionally asked to be involved in important treatment decisions and of these relatives 97.1% reported to have had enough time to discuss questions and concerns when important decisions were to be made. During the first COVID-19 wave relatives were significantly less likely to be involved in decision-making compared to relatives from pre-COVID-19. The interviews showed that involvement varied from being informed about an already made decision to deliberation about the best treatment option. Preferences for involvement also varied, with some relatives preferring no involvement due to a perceived lack of expertise and others preferring an active role as the patient's advocate. Discussing a patient's quality of life was appreciated by relatives, and according to relatives healthcare professionals also found this valuable. In some cases the preferred and actual involvement was in discordance, preferring either a larger or a smaller role.ConclusionsAs treatment alignment with a patient's values and preferences and accordance between preferred and actual involvement in decision-making is very important, we suggest that the treatment decision-making process should start with discussions about a patient's quality of life, followed by tailoring the process to relatives' preferences as much as possible. Healthcare professionals should be aware of relatives' heterogeneous and possibly changing preferences regarding the decision-making process.

Project description:IntroductionEnd-of-life-decisions (EOLD) have become an important part of modern intensive care medicine. With increasing therapeutic possibilities on the one hand and many ICU-patients lacking decision making capacity or an advance directive on the other the decision making process is a major challenge on the intensive care unit (ICU). Currently, data are poor on factors associated with EOLD in Germany. In 2009, a new law on advance directives binding physicians and the patient's surrogate decision makers was enacted in Germany. So far it is unknown if this law influenced proceedings of EOLD making on the ICU.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on all deceased patients (n = 224) in a 22-bed surgical ICU of a German university medical center from 08/2008 to 09/2010. Patient characteristics were compared between patients with an EOLD and those without an EOLD. Patients with an EOLD admitted before and after change of legislation were compared with respect to frequencies of EOLD performance as well as advance directive rates.ResultsIn total, 166 (74.1%) of deaths occurred after an EOLD. Compared to patients without an EOLD, comorbidities, ICU severity scores, and organ replacement technology did not differ significantly. EOLDs were shared within the caregiverteam and with the patient's surrogate decision makers. After law enacting, no differences in EOLD performance or frequency of advance directives (8.9% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.807) were observed except an increase of documentation efforts associated with EOLDs (18.7% vs. 43.6%; p<0.001).ConclusionsIn our ICU EOLD proceedings were performed patient-individually. But EOLDs follow a standard of shared decision making within the caregiverteam and the patient's surrogate decision makers. Enacting a law on advance directives has not affected the decision making-process in EOLDs nor has it affected population's advance care planning habits. However, it has led to increased EOLD-associated documentation on the ICU.Trial registration[corrected] ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01294189.