Dataset Information

Predictors of Family Dissatisfaction with Support During Neurocritical Care Shared Decision-Making.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is a critical need to improve support for families making difficult shared decisions about patient care with clinicians in the neuroscience ICU (neuro-ICU). The aim of this study is to identify patient- and family-related factors associated with dissatisfaction with shared decision-making support among families of neuro-critically ill patients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using survey data that had been collected from a consecutive sample of family members of patients in the neuro-ICU (one family member per patient) at two US academic centers. Satisfaction with shared decision-making support on ICU discharge had been measured among family members using one specific Likert scale item on the Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 survey, a validated survey instrument for families of patients in the ICU. We dichotomized top-box responses for this particular item as an outcome variable and identified available patient- and family-related covariates associated with dissatisfaction (i.e., less than complete satisfaction) via univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Among 355 surveys, 180 (49.5%) of the surveys indicated dissatisfaction with support during decision-making. In a multivariate model, no preexisting characteristics of families or patients ascertainable on ICU admission were predictive of dissatisfaction. However, among family factors determined during the ICU course, experiencing three or fewer formal family meetings (odds ratio 1.93 [confidence interval 1.13-3.31]; p = 0.01) was significantly predictive of dissatisfaction with decisional support in this cohort with an average patient length of stay of 8.6 days (SD 8.4). There was also a trend toward a family's decision to keep a patient as full code, without treatment limitations, being predictive of dissatisfaction (odds ratio 1.80 [confidence interval 0.93-3.51]; p = 0.08).

Conclusions

Family dissatisfaction with neuro-ICU shared decision-making support is not necessarily predicted by any preexisting family or patient variables but appears to correlate with participating in fewer formal family meetings during ICU admission. Future studies to improve family satisfaction with neurocritical care decision-making support should have broad inclusion criteria for participants and should consider promoting frequency of family meetings as a core strategy.

SUBMITTER: Weber U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8021441 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInnovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion.MethodsIn this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force-recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later.ResultsFrom August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0-39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5-40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8-37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionThe CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

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:AIM:The aim of this study was to explore shared decision-making among residents, their families and staff to determine relevant strategies to support shared decision-making in long-term care (LTC). BACKGROUND:Meaningful engagement of long-term care home (LTCH) residents and their families in care decisions is key in the provision of quality of care. Shared decision-making is an interprofessional approach to increasing resident and family engagement in care decisions which can lead to higher quality decisions, more relevant care interventions and greater resident, family, and staff satisfaction. Despite these advantages, shared decision-making has not been widely implemented in practice in LTC. METHODS:The study took place in one LTCH in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. A qualitative descriptive design was used to explore how residents, family members and staff described how they collaborate when making decisions concerning resident care, and their perceptions of facilitators and challenges to a collaborative approach to decision-making. Individual interviews were conducted with nine participants: residents, families and staff. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis. FINDINGS:Four main themes that described resident, family and staff perspectives of shared decision-making were as follows: (a) oral communication pathways for information sharing; (b) supporting resident decision-making autonomy; (c) relational aspects of care facilitate shared decision-making; and (d) lack of effective communication creates barriers to shared decision-making. CONCLUSION:As the demand for LTC continues to increase, it is crucial that healthcare providers engage in collaborative, relational practices that foster high-quality resident care. While a relational approach to care can facilitate shared decision-making, there are opportunities to further cultivate shared decision-making in LTCHs through more effective communication and collaboration. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Understanding how information is shared and decisions are made can facilitate shared decision-making in LTCHs. The strategies identified from this study could be further co-developed and implemented in LTCHs.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making, a communicative process to reach decisions based on informed preferences, evidence, and co-created goals, improves care satisfaction and patients' quality of life. However, shared decision-making has not been widely implemented in long-term care facilities, and few studies have examined how to promote the shared decision-making practice. This study aimed to identify the influencing factors of shared decision-making based on the Person-centered Practice Framework in long-term care facilities.MethodsA total of 300 staff (nursing staff, social workers, and personal care workers) in 13 Korean long-term care facilities participated in this study. Data from 280 respondents were finally analyzed, excluding respondents with missing values. Data were collected using structured questionnaires that included items on shared decision-making, personal factors (e.g., knowledge about dementia, person-centered care education, person-centered attitude, communication behavior, and job tenure), and care environment factors (e.g., person-centered climate, staffing level, effective staff relationships, supportive supervisors, and power-sharing). Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed using Mplus Version 8.8.ResultsThe mean shared decision-making score was 35.78 (range 8-45). Staff with experience of person-centered care education (β = 0.198, p = 0.034), a higher person-centered attitude score (β = 0.201, p = 0.007), and a higher communication behavior score (β = 0.242, p < 0.001) were more likely to report a higher shared decision-making score. In addition, staff who viewed their care environment as more person-centered were more likely to report a higher shared decision-making score (β = 0.416, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study highlights that personal (e.g., person-centered care education, person-centered attitude, and communication behavior) and care environment (e.g., person-centered climate) factors could influence shared decision-making for long-term care residents. These findings could be foundational evidence for facilitating shared decision-making practice in long-term care settings.