Decision making in interhospital transport of critically ill patients: national questionnaire survey among critical care physicians.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: van Lieshout EJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2480595 | biostudies-other | 2008 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:INTRODUCTION:We conducted a cross-sectional study at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai to elicit emergency physician (EP) perceptions regarding intensive care unit (ICU) triage decisions and ongoing management for boarding of ICU patients in the emergency department (ED). We assessed factors influencing the disposition decision for critically ill patients in the ED to characterize EPs' perceptions about ongoing critical care delivery in the ED while awaiting ICU admission. METHODS:Through content expert review and pilot testing, we iteratively developed a 25-item written survey targeted to EPs, eliciting current ICU triage structure, opinions on factors influencing ICU admission decisions, and views on caring for critically ill patients "boarding" in the ED for >4-6 hours. RESULTS:We approached 732 EPs at a large, national emergency medicine conference, achieving 93.6% response and completion rate, with 54% academic and 46% community participants. One-fifth reported having formal ICU admission criteria, although only 36.6% reported adherence. Common factors influencing EPs' ICU triage decisions were illness severity (91.1%), ICU interventions needed (87.6%), and diagnosis (68.2%), while ICU bed availability (13.5%) and presence of other critically ill patients in ED (10.2%) were less or not important. While 72.1% reported frequently caring for ICU boarders, respondents identified high patient volume (61.3%) and inadequate support staffing (48.6%) as the most common challenges in caring for boarding ICU patients. CONCLUSION:Patient factors (eg, diagnosis, illness severity) were seen as more important than system factors (eg, bed availability) in triaging ED patients to the ICU. Boarding ICU patients is a common challenge for more than two-thirds of EPs, exacerbated by ED volume and staffing constraints.
| S-EPMC7081882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThere are no evidence-based programs to train physicians to facilitate shared decision making based on incapacitated intensive care unit patients' values and preferences.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to develop a high-fidelity simulation to fill this gap.MethodsCase development involved six steps: 1) drafting a case about an elderly patient receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation; 2) engaging an expert advisory board to optimize case content; 3) revising the case based on advisory board input; 4) training actors to portray the case patient's daughter; 5) obtaining physician feedback on the simulation; and 6) revising the case based on their feedback. We conducted a cross-sectional pilot study with 50 physicians to assess feasibility and acceptability, defined a priori as an enrollment rate >40 physicians/year, study procedures <75 minutes/participant, >95% actor adherence to standardization rules, and high physician ratings of realism and acceptability.ResultsAdvisory panel feedback yielded two modifications: 1) refocusing the case on decision making about tracheostomy and percutaneous gastrostomy and 2) making the patient's values more authentic. Physician feedback yielded two additional modifications: 1) reducing how readily the actor divulged the patient's values and 2) making her more emotional. All 50 physicians enrolled in the pilot study over 11 months completed study procedures in <75 minutes. Actor adherence to standardization rules was 95.8%. Physicians' mean ratings of realism and acceptability were 8.4 and 9.1, respectively, on a 10-point scale.ConclusionSimulation is feasible, is acceptable, and can be adequately standardized to study physicians' skills for facilitating surrogate decision making based on an incapacitated intensive care unit patient's values and preferences.
| S-EPMC6348012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To identify the relationships between advance directive status, demographic characteristics and decisional burden (role stress and depressive symptoms) of surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) of patients with chronic critical illness.Although the prevalence of advance directives among Americans has increased, SDMs are ultimately responsible for complex medical decisions of the chronically critically ill patient. Decisional burden has lasting psychological effects on SDMs. There is insufficient evidence on the influence of advance directives on the decisional burden of surrogate decision-makers of patients with chronic critical illness.The study was a secondary data analysis of cross-sectional data. Data were obtained from 489 surrogate decision-makers of chronically critically ill patients at two academic medical centres in Northeast Ohio, United States, between September 2005-May 2008.Data were collected using demographic forms and questionnaires. A single-item measure of role stress and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CESD) scale were used to capture the SDM's decisional burden. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, chi-square and path analyses were performed.Surrogate decision-makers who were nonwhite, with low socioeconomic status and low education level were less likely to have advance directive documentation for their chronically critically ill patient. The presence of an advance directive mitigates the decisional burden by directly reducing the SDM's role stress and indirectly lessening the severity of depressive symptoms.Most SDMs of chronically critically ill patients will not have the benefit of knowing the patient's preferences for life-sustaining therapies and consequently be at risk of increased decisional burden.Study results are clinically useful for patient education on the influence of advance directives. Patients may be informed that SDMs without advance directives are at risk of increased decisional burden and will require decisional support to facilitate patient-centred decision-making.
| S-EPMC5573593 | biostudies-other
Project description:Aims:Physical restraints are often used for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation to protect important medical equipment. However, they have adverse physical and psychological effects and could pose ethical hazards. Physical restraint use varies by country, but so far there is little understanding of the frequency of physical restraint use among intensive care unit (ICU) patients in Japan. The present study aims to describe the frequency of physical restraint use among Japanese patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Additionally, it attempts to verify the hypothesis that insufficient human resources have increased the frequency of physical restraints. Methods:We undertook a cross-sectional online open anonymous survey of ICU nurses using a self-administered questionnaire to examine the use of physical restraints for patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in Japan. Results:We obtained 175 responses, of which 46 were excluded. Of the respondents, 43% reported that physical restraints were used for more than 75% of mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive care units with a higher frequency of physical restraint use had a significantly greater number of beds per nurse compared to those with a lower frequency; however, after adjusting for the number of beds in the ICU and hospital type in a logistic regression analysis, the number of beds per nurse was no longer significantly related to the use of physical restraints. Conclusions:Physical restraints are commonly used among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in Japan. A systematic approach to reducing physical restraint use among mechanically ventilated patients is needed.
| S-EPMC6328904 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGoal attainment of guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is suboptimal. Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians' treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We examined physicians' treatment recommendations in high-risk patients whose LDL-C remained uncontrolled despite statin monotherapy.MethodsPhysicians completed a questionnaire prior to randomization into period I of a two-period randomized controlled trial evaluating LDL-C goal attainment in patients whose LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks' treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day (NCT01154036). Physicians' treatment recommendations were surveyed for two hypothetical and one real scenario: (1) LDL-C presumed near goal (between 100-105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C presumed far from goal (~120 mg/dL), and (3) observed baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients. Prognostic factors considered during decision-making were identified by regression analysis. Observed lipid outcomes at the end of period I (following 6 weeks' treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 mg) were compared with estimated LDL-C outcomes for physicians' treatment recommendations after 6 weeks (based on individual patients' pre-randomization LDL-C and expected incremental change).ResultsQuestionnaires were completed for 1,534 patients. No change in therapy, or double atorvastatin dose, were frequently recommended, even when LDL-C was far from goal (6.5% and 52.2% of patients, respectively). Double atorvastatin dose was commonly recommended in all scenarios (43-52% of patients). More intensive LDL-C-lowering regimens were recommended infrequently e.g. double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe only <12% in all scenarios. Overall, cardiovascular risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were prominent factors in decision-making for treatment. Comparison of observed and estimated LDL-C levels showed that physicians tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their recommendations.ConclusionsThis study provides insight into physicians' perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. The need for lower LDL-C and cardiovascular risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making, but physicians' treatment choices were more conservative than guideline recommendations, potentially resulting in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01154036.
| S-EPMC4457981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When critically ill neurologic patients are cognitively incapacitated, decisions about treatment options are delegated to surrogates, usually family members. We conducted qualitative interviews with 20 Dutch neurologists and residents in neurology varying in age, work experience, and workplace to investigate how they involve their patients' family members in decision-making. Their reports revealed that they ascribed 3 different, yet tightly interwoven roles to families: (1) informants about values and preferences of patients, (2) participants in care and care planning, and (3) sufferers themselves. Neurologists regarded decision-making as an integral part of end-of-life care rather than an isolated process, changing the meaning of what decision-making entails. All different roles of family members were important in end-of-life care and decision-making, instead of the single one of legal surrogate. Neurologists need to support family members in these various roles.
| S-EPMC5764428 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPriority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians' views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW).MethodsAn online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology.ResultsOverall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than 'at least once per month,' whilst 60% felt less than 'well-prepared' to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform 'well' and 'very well' and 64% NBHW's national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHW's national guidelines.ConclusionThere was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHW's national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.
| S-EPMC9808196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Moral distress is common among critical care physicians and can impact negatively healthcare individuals and institutions. Better understanding inter-individual variability in moral distress is needed to inform future wellness interventions.ObjectivesTo explore when and how critical care physicians experience moral distress in the workplace and its consequences, how physicians' professional interactions with colleagues affected their perceived level of moral distress, and in which circumstances professional rewards were experienced and mitigated moral distress.DesignInterview-based qualitative study using inductive thematic analysis.Setting and participantsTwenty critical care physicians practicing in Canadian ICUs who expressed interest in participating in a semi-structured interview after completion of a national, cross-sectional survey of moral distress in ICU physicians.ResultsStudy participants described different ways to perceive and resolve morally challenging clinical situations, which were grouped into four clinical moral orientations: virtuous, resigned, deferring, and empathic. Moral orientations resulted from unique combinations of strength of personal moral beliefs and perceived power over moral clinical decision-making, which led to different rationales for moral decision-making. Study findings illustrate how sociocultural, legal, and clinical contexts influenced individual physicians' moral orientation and how moral orientation altered perceived moral distress and moral satisfaction. The degree of dissonance between individual moral orientations within care team determined, in part, the quantity of "negative judgments" and/or "social support" that physicians obtained from their colleagues. The levels of moral distress, moral satisfaction, social judgment, and social support ultimately affected the type and severity of the negative consequences experienced by ICU physicians.Conclusions and relevanceAn expanded understanding of moral orientations provides an additional tool to address the problem of moral distress in the critical care setting. Diversity in moral orientations may explain, in part, the variability in moral distress levels among clinicians and likely contributes to interpersonal conflicts in the ICU setting. Additional investigations on different moral orientations in various clinical environments are much needed to inform the design of effective systemic and institutional interventions that address healthcare professionals' moral distress and mitigate its negative consequences.
| S-EPMC9990831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvery medical decision is based on balancing medical knowledge, ethical considerations, and patient preferences. Previous surveys have mainly covered the ethical knowledge of medical staff. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of an innovative concept regarding how ethical criteria are applied to clinical decision-making during critical illness.MethodsAn online survey including a short case vignette was carried out at a university hospital among physicians specialising in intensive care medicine in Germany. After free text responses regarding further required case information, the participants were asked to rank decision criteria during the course of the case vignette. A qualitative evaluation was performed by two independent investigators, based on a transcription into categories. This was followed by a quantitative analysis of ranked criteria.ResultsOur analysis has shown that doctors are initially inclined to consider medical information when making treatment decisions. When complications occur, ethical values are more often included in the decision-making. The qualitative evaluation reveiled that the patient's will was consistently regarded as the leading criterion for decision-making. In the quantitative evaluation, patient's well-being, quality of life, and patient autonomy were rated as the most important decision criteria. Economic factors were ranked least important.ConclusionA mixed methods approach is able to reflect the complexity of ethical reasoning within the medical decision-making process, suggesting the feasibility of this concept.Clinical trial registrationThe study was registered under DRKS-ID: DKRS00011905 (April 2017).
| S-EPMC10430832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleThere is debate about whether physicians should routinely provide patient surrogates with recommendations about limiting life support.ObjectivesTo explore physicians' self-reported practices and attitudes.MethodsA cross-sectional, stratified survey of 1,000 randomly selected US critical care physicians was mailed. We included a vignette to experimentally examine how surrogate desire for a recommendation and physician agreement with the surrogate modified whether physicians would provide a recommendation.Measurements and main resultsProportion of respondents reporting they routinely provide surrogates with a recommendation and how responses varied based on vignette characteristics. A total of 608 (66%) of 922 eligible physicians participated. Approximately one (22%) in five reported always providing surrogates with a recommendation, whereas 1 (11%) in 10 reported rarely or never doing so. Almost all respondents reported comfort making recommendations (92%) and viewed them as appropriate (93%). Most also viewed recommendations as a critical care physician's duty (87%) and did not view them as unduly influential (80%). Approximately two-fifths (41%) believed recommendations were only appropriate if sought by surrogates. In response to the vignettes, nearly all respondents (91%) provided a recommendation when the surrogate requested a recommendation and the physician agreed with the surrogate's likely decision. Physicians were less likely to provide an unwanted recommendation, both when physicians agreed (29%) and disagreed with the surrogate's likely decision (44%).ConclusionsThere is substantial variation among physicians' self-reported use of recommendations to surrogates of critically ill adults. Surrogates' desires for recommendations and physicians' agreement with surrogates' likely decisions may have important influence on whether recommendations are provided.
| S-EPMC3480524 | biostudies-literature