Decision-making process during limitation life-sustaining support meetings in French intensive care units.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tarcy T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9423697 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Decision-making process during limitation life-sustaining support meetings in French intensive care units.
Tarcy Terry T Kallel Hatem H Giffard Mathilde M Besch Guillaume G Aubry Régis R
Intensive care medicine 20220829 11
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC7237960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation.MethodsAn adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis.ResultsN?=?249 cases were observed in N?=?29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation.ConclusionsThe quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs.
| S-EPMC5693525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a consensus framework that can guide the process of decision-making on continuing or limiting life-sustaining treatments in ICU patients, using evidence-based items, supported by caregivers, patients, and surrogate decision makers from multiple countries.DesignA three-round web-based international Delphi consensus study with a priori consensus definition was conducted with experts from 13 countries. Participants reviewed items of the decision-making process on a seven-point Likert scale or with open-ended questions. Questions concerned terminology, content, and timing of decision-making steps. The summarized results (including mean scores) and expert suggestions were presented in the subsequent round for review.SettingWeb-based surveys of international participants representing ICU physicians, nurses, former ICU patients, and surrogate decision makers.PatientsNot applicable.InterventionsNot applicable.Measurements and main resultsIn three rounds, respectively, 28, 28, and 27 (of 33 invited) physicians together with 12, 10, and seven (of 19 invited) nurses participated. Patients and surrogates were involved in round one and 12 of 27 responded. Caregivers were mostly working in university affiliated hospitals in Northern Europe. During the Delphi process, most items were modified in order to reach consensus. Seven items lacked consensus after three rounds. The final consensus framework comprises the content and timing of four elements; three elements focused on caregiver-surrogate communication (admission meeting, follow-up meeting, goals-of-care meeting); and one element (weekly time-out meeting) focused on assessing preferences, prognosis, and proportionality of ICU treatment among professionals.ConclusionsPhysicians, nurses, patients, and surrogates generated a consensus-based framework to guide the process of decision-making on continuing or limiting life-sustaining treatments in the ICU. Early, frequent, and scheduled family meetings combined with a repeated multidisciplinary time-out meeting may support decisions in relation to patient preferences, prognosis, and proportionality.
| S-EPMC7161724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed (1) to determine the appropriateness of using decision trees as a classification tool for determining the allocation of sport classes of para-footballers with "moderate vs. mild" cerebral palsy (CP) profiles of spastic diplegia/hemiplegia and ataxia/athetosis based on observational outcomes by international classifiers, and (2) to identify what key observational features were relevant to discriminating among different impairment levels. A sample of 16 experienced international classifiers from five world regions participated in this study, observing activity limitation of a final sample of 21 international CP footballers when performing 16 gross-motor and sports-specific tests for balance (n = 3), coordination (n = 5), running, accelerations and decelerations (n = 3), jumping (n = 4), and change of direction ability (n = 1). For the overall sample (336 observations), the model included eight decision nodes and 24 branches with 17 leaves, including side-step, side-stepping, and triple hop as the tests with the best sensitivity (precision = 67.0%). For those with spastic diplegia (64 observations: Two nodes, six branches with five leaves), the range of motion in the side-step test and the balance in the tandem walk tests correctly classified 89.1% of the observations. In those with athetosis and ataxia (96 observations), the model included five nodes, 15 branches, and 11 leaves (176 observations, precision = 86.5%). For those with spastic hemiplegia, a model containing two nodes, six branches, and five leaves had 90.9% accuracy, including observational features of balance in the side-step test and symmetry in the side-stepping test. The observational tool used in this study, based on the impact of specific impairment measurements of hypertonia, athetosis, and ataxia, can be used to determine which assessments are more appropriate for discriminating between functional profiles in para-footballers with CP.
| S-EPMC8074122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the risk of an extensive overload of the healthcare systems have elucidated the need to make decisions on the level of life-sustaining treatment for patients requiring hospitalisation. The purpose of the study was to investigate the proportion and characteristics of COVID-19 patients with limitation of life-sustaining treatment decisions and the degree of patient involvement in the decisions.MethodsA retrospective observational descriptive study was conducted in three Danish regional hospitals, looking at all patients ≥ 18 years of age admitted in 2020 with COVID-19 as the primary diagnosis. Lists of hospitalised patients admitted due to COVID-19 were extracted. The data registration included age, gender, comorbidities, including mental state, body mass index, frailty, recent hospital admissions, COVID-19 life-sustaining treatment, ICU admission, decisions on limitations of life-sustaining treatment before and during current hospitalisation, hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 476 patients were included. For 7% (33/476), a decision about limitation of life-sustaining treatment had been made prior to hospital admission. At the time of admission, one or more limitations of life-sustaining treatment were registered for 16% (75/476) of patients. During the admission, limitation decisions were made for an additional 11 patients, totaling 18% (86/476). For 40% (34/86), the decisions were either made by or discussed with the patient. The decisions not made by patients were made by physicians. For 36% (31/86), no information was disclosed about patient involvement.ConclusionsLife-sustaining treatment limitation decisions were made for 18% of a COVID-19 patient cohort. Hereof, more than a third of the decisions had been made before hospital admission. Many records lacked information on patient involvement in the decisions.
| S-EPMC8686092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCaregivers of children with medical complexity (CMC) face decisions about life-sustaining treatments (LST) like tracheostomy. We sought to develop a clinically relevant and realistic model for decision-making about tracheostomy placement that might apply to other LST in CMC.DesignThis qualitative study, conducted between 2013 and 2015, consisted of 41 interviews with 56 caregivers of CMC who had received tracheostomies and 5 focus groups of 33 healthcare providers (HCPs) at a tertiary-care children's hospital in North Carolina. Participants were asked about their perspectives on the tracheostomy decision-making process. Data were transcribed, and coded. Using thematic content analysis, we inductively developed a tracheostomy decision-making framework and process.ResultsMany factors influenced caregivers' decisions, including children's well-being and caregivers' values, faith, knowledge, experience, emotional state, and social factors; preserving the child's life was the most important. HCPs consider many clinical and nonclinical factors; recommending tracheostomy for children with limited survival, perceived poor functioning and quality of life, and progressive conditions is ethically difficult. The framework of tracheostomy decision-making has inter-related caregiver- and HCP-level factors that influence the process. The framework contains elements not captured in a shared decision-making model, but better fits a collaborative decision-making (CDM) model. The tracheostomy CDM process that emerged from the data has two nonsequential components that HCPs could use: (1) gaining understanding and (2) holding decision-making conversations.ConclusionsCDM could be a useful model for clinicians guiding families about tracheostomy for CMC. The applicability of CDM for decision-making about other LSTs needs further exploration.
| S-EPMC9825978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo clarify the procedures related to mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit setting: allocation of ventilators, team education, maintenance and reference documents.Study designDeclarative survey.MethodsBetween September and December 2010, we assessed the assignment and types of ventilators (ICU ventilators, temporary repair ventilators, non-invasive ventilators [NIV], and transportation ventilators), medical and nurse education, maintenance of the ventilators, presence of reference documents. Results are expressed in median/range and proportions.ResultsAmong the 62 participating ICUs, a median of 15 ventilators/ICU (range 1-50) was reported with more than one trademark in 47 (76%) units. Specific ventilators were used for NIV in 22 (35%) units, temporary repair in 49 (79%) and transportation in all the units. Nurse education courses were given by ICU physicians in 54 (87%) units or by a company in 29 (47%) units. Medical education courses were made by ICU senior physicians in 55 (89%) units or by a company in 21 (34%) units. These courses were organized occasionally in 24 (39%) ICU and bi-annually in 16 (26%) units. Maintenance procedures were made by the ICU staff in 39 (63%) units, dedicated staff (17 [27%]) or bioengineering technicians (14 [23%] ICU). Reference documents were written for maintenance procedures in 48 (77%) units, ventilator setup in 22 (35%) units and ventilator dysfunction in 20 (32%) ICU.ConclusionsThis first survey shows disparate distribution of ventilators and practices among French ICU. Education and understanding of the proper use of ventilators are key issues for security improvement.
| S-EPMC7126612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith paediatric patients, deciding whether to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments (LST) at the end of life is difficult and ethically sensitive. Little is understood about how and why physicians decide on withholding/withdrawing LST at the end of life in paediatric patients. In this study, we aimed to synthesise results from the literature on physicians' perceptions about decision-making when dealing with withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in paediatric patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of empirical qualitative studies. Five electronic databases (Pubmed, Cinahl®, Embase®, Scopus®, Web of Science™) were exhaustively searched in order to identify articles published in English from inception through March 17, 2021. Analysis and synthesis were guided by the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.ResultsThirty publications met our criteria and were included for analysis. Overall, we found that physicians agreed to involve parents, and to a lesser extent, children in the decision-making process about withholding/withdrawing LST. Our analysis to identify conceptual schemes revealed that physicians divided their decision-making into three stages: (1) early preparation via advance care planning, (2) information giving and receiving, and (3) arriving at the final decision. Physicians considered advocating for the best interests of the child and of the parents as their major focus. We also identified moderating factors of decision-making, such as facilitators and barriers, specifically those related to physicians and parents that influenced physicians' decision-making.ConclusionsBy focusing on stakeholders, structure of the decision-making process, ethical values, and influencing factors, our analysis showed that physicians generally agreed to share the decision-making with parents and the child, especially for adolescents. Further research is required to better understand how to minimise the negative impact of barriers on the decision-making process (e.g., difficult involvement of children, lack of paediatric palliative care expertise, conflict with parents).
| S-EPMC9229823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study of collective decision-making spans various fields such as brain and behavioural sciences, economics, management sciences, and artificial intelligence. Despite these interdisciplinary applications, little is known regarding how a group of simple 'yes/no' units, such as neurons in the brain, can select the best option among multiple options. One prerequisite for achieving such correct choices by the brain is correct evaluation of relative option quality, which enables a collective decision maker to efficiently choose the best option. Here, we applied a sensory discrimination mechanism using yes/no units with differential thresholds to a model for making a collective choice among multiple options. The performance corresponding to the correct choice was shown to be affected by various parameters. High performance can be achieved by tuning the threshold distribution with the options' quality distribution. The number of yes/no units allocated to each option and its variability profoundly affects performance. When this variability is large, a quorum decision becomes superior to a majority decision under some conditions. The general features of this collective decision-making by a group of simple yes/no units revealed in this study suggest that this mechanism may be useful in applications across various fields.
| S-EPMC5663756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe decision whether to initiate intensive care for the critically ill patient involves ethical questions regarding what is good and right for the patient. It is not clear how referring doctors negotiate these issues in practice. The aim of this study was to describe and understand consultants' experiences of the decision-making process around referral to intensive care.DesignQualitative interviews were analysed according to a phenomenological hermeneutical method.Setting and participantsConsultant doctors (n=27) from departments regularly referring patients to intensive care in six UK hospitals.ResultsIn the precarious and uncertain situation of critical illness, trust in the decision-making process is needed and can be enhanced through the way in which the process unfolds. When there are no obvious right or wrong answers as to what ought to be done, how the decision is made and how the process unfolds is morally important. Through acknowledging the burdensome doubts in the process, contributing to an emerging, joint understanding of the patient's situation, and responding to mutual moral duties of the doctors involved, trust in the decision-making process can be enhanced and a shared moral responsibility between the stake holding doctors can be assumed.ConclusionThe findings highlight the importance of trust in the decision-making process and how the relationships between the stakeholding doctors are crucial to support their moral responsibility for the patient. Poor interpersonal relationships can damage trust and negatively impact decisions made on behalf of a critically ill patient. For this reason, active attempts must be made to foster good relationships between doctors. This is not only important to create a positive working environment, but a mechanism to improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC7993217 | biostudies-literature