Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Support Intervention About Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized Patients Who Have a High Risk of Death

Medical Decision-Making and Bereavement Experiences After Cardiac Arrest: Qualitative Insights From Surrogates

BACKGROUND

Surrogates of incapacitated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) face decisions related to life-sustaining treatments. Decisional conflict is understudied.

OBJECTIVES

To compare experiences of ICU surrogates by reported level of decisional conflict related to treatment decisions after a patient's cardiac arrest preceding death.

METHODS

Convergent mixed methods were used. Bereaved surrogates recruited from a single northeastern US academic medical center completed surveys including the low-literacy Decisional Conflict Scale (moderate-to-high cut point >25) and individual interviews about 1 month after the patient's death. Interview data were analyzed by directed and conventional content analysis. Surrogates were stratified by median total survey score, and interview findings were compared by decisional conflict level.

RESULTS

Of 16 surrogates, 7 reported some decisional conflict (median survey score, 0; range, 0-25). About two-thirds decided to withdraw treatments. Three themes emerged from interviews: 2 reflecting decision-making experiences ("the ultimate act"; "the legacy of clinician communication") and 1 reflecting bereavement experiences ("I wish there was a handbook"). Surrogates reporting decisional conflict included those who first pursued but later withdrew treatments after a patient's in-hospital cardiac arrest. Surrogates with decisional conflict described suboptimal support, poor medical understanding, and lack of clarity about patients' treatment preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide insight into bereaved ICU surrogates' experiences. The low overall survey scores may reflect retrospective measurement. Surrogates who pursued treatment were underrepresented. Novel approaches to support bereaved surrogates are warranted.

Factors influencing decision-making processes for intensive care therapy goals: A systematic integrative review

BACKGROUND

Delivering intensive care therapies concordant with patients' values and preferences is considered gold standard care. To achieve this, healthcare professionals must better understand decision-making processes and factors influencing them.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing decision-making processes about implementing and limiting intensive care therapies.

DESIGN

Systematic integrative review, synthesising quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies.

METHODS

Five databases were searched (Medline, The Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL plus) for peer-reviewed, primary research published in English from 2010 to Oct 2022. Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods studies focussing on intensive care decision-making were included for appraisal. Full-text review and quality screening included the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool for qualitative and mixed methods and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument for quantitative studies. Papers were reviewed by two authors independently, and a third author resolved disagreements. The primary author developed a thematic coding framework and performed coding and pattern identification using NVivo, with regular group discussions.

RESULTS

Of the 83 studies, 44 were qualitative, 32 quantitative, and seven mixed-methods studies. Seven key themes were identified: what the decision is about; who is making the decision; characteristics of the decision-maker; factors influencing medical prognostication; clinician-patient/surrogate communication; factors affecting decisional concordance; and how interactions affect decisional concordance. Substantial thematic overlaps existed. The most reported decision was whether to withhold therapies, and the most common decision-maker was the clinician. Whether a treatment recommendation was concordant was influenced by multiple factors including institutional cultures and clinician continuity.

CONCLUSION

Decision-making relating to intensive care unit therapy goals is complicated. The current review identifies that breadth of decision-makers, and the complexity of intersecting factors has not previously been incorporated into interventions or considered within a single review. Its findings provide a basis for future research and training to improve decisional concordance between clinicians and patients/surrogates with regards to intensive care unit therapies.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Voices of the Future: Junior Physicians' Experiences of Discussing Life-Sustaining Treatments With Hospitalized Patients

OBJECTIVES

Life-sustaining treatments (LST) aim to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical condition. Being associated with a high risk of developing unwanted adverse outcomes, decisions about LST are routinely discussed with patients at hospital admission, particularly when it comes to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Physicians may encounter many challenges when enforcing shared decision-making in this domain. In this study, we map out how junior physicians in Southern Switzerland refer to their experiences when conducting LST discussions with hospitalized patients and their learning strategies related to this.

METHODS

In this qualitative exploratory study, we conducted semi-directive interviews with junior physicians working at the regional public hospital in Southern Switzerland and analyzed them with an inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Nine physicians participated. We identified 3 themes: emotional burden, learning strategies and practices for conducting discussions. Participants reported feeling unprepared and often distressed when discussing LST with patients. Factors associated with emotional burden were related to the context and to how physicians developed and managed their emotions. Participants signaled having received insufficient education to prepare for discussing LST. They reported learning to discuss LST essentially through trial and error but particularly appreciated the possibility of mentoring and experiential training. Explanations that physicians gave about LST took into account patients' frequent misconceptions. Physicians reported feeling under pressure to ensure that decisions documented were medically indicated and being more at ease when patients decided by themselves to limit treatments. Communication was deemed as an important skill.

CONCLUSIONS

Junior physicians experienced conducting LST discussions as challenging and felt caught between advocating for medically relevant decisions and respecting patients' autonomy. Participants reported a substantive emotional burden and feeling unprepared for this task, essentially because of a lack of adequate training. Interventions aiming to ameliorate junior physicians' competency in discussing LST can positively affect their personal experiences and decisional outcomes.

Supporting older patients in making healthcare decisions: The effectiveness of decision aids; A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of Decision Aids (DAs) compared to usual care or alternative interventions for older patients facing treatment, screening, or care decisions.

METHODS

A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies included patients ≥ 65 years or reported a mean of ≥ 70 years. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice made and decision making process, user experience and ways in which DAs were tailored to older patients. Meta-analysis was conducted, if possible, or outcomes were synthesized descriptively.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 studies were included. Using DAs were effective in increasing knowledge (SMD 0.90; 95% CI [0.48, 1.32]), decreasing decisional conflict (SMD -0.15; 95% CI [-0.29, -0.01]), improving patient-provider communication (RR 1.67; 95% CI [1.21, 2.29]), and preparing patients to make an individualized decision (MD 35.7%; 95% CI [26.8, 44.6]). Nine studies provided details on how the DA was tailored to older patients.

CONCLUSION

This review shows a number of favourable results for the effectiveness of DAs in decision making with older patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Current DAs can be used to support shared decision making with older patients when faced with treatment, screening or care decisions.

Fighting Fires and Battling the Clock: Advance Care Planning in Family Medicine Residency

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Few family physicians treating patients with life-limiting illness report regularly initiating advance care planning (ACP) conversations about illness understanding, values, or care preferences. To better understand how family medicine training contributes to this gap in clinical care, we asked how family medicine residents learn to engage in ACP in the workplace.

METHODS

We coded semistructured interviews with family medicine residents (n=9), reflective memos (n=9), and autoethnographic field notes (n=37) using a constructivist-grounded theory approach. We next used the constant comparative method of grounded theory to develop two composite narratives describing participants' experiences that we then member-checked with participants.

RESULTS

We identified six core categories of social process to describe how participants were taught to engage in advance care planning. These social processes included previously unidentified barriers to ACP that were specific to their role as learners. These barriers appeared to lead to cultural avoidance of prognosis, conflation of ACP and goals of care (GOC) conversations, and deferral of difficult conversations to nonprimary care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Family medicine educators should consider developing interventions such as flexible clinic schedules, dedicated ACP time, deliberate observed practice, and structured teaching to address potential barriers identified in this exploratory research. Family medicine leaders may wish to consider directly teaching residents and preceptors about crucial differences between ACP and GOC discussions. Shifting curricular focus toward eliciting values and illness understanding during ACP could help resolve a cultural avoidance of prognosis that limits family medicine residents' attempts to engage in ACP.

"To Be or Not to Be"-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized People Who Have a Low Probability of Benefit: Qualitative Analysis of Semi-structured Interviews

Purpose

Our aim was to understand the decision making of patients in hospital who wanted cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite low probability of benefit.

Methods

We included patients admitted to general medical wards who had a low chance of surviving in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and had an order in the chart to administer CPR. We developed an interview guide to explore participants' decision-making process, sources of information, and emotions associated with this decision.

Results

We developed 3 themes from the data. 1) "Life is worth living . . . for now": Participants describe their enjoyment of life and desire to carry on in their current state. 2) "Making sense of CPR outcomes": Participants saw CPR outcomes as binary, either they live, or they die; deciding not to receive CPR means choosing death. Participants were optimistic they would survive CPR and cited personal experience and TV as information sources. 3) "Decision process": Participants did not engage in shared decision making. Instead, they were asked a binary yes/no question with no reflection on their values or discussion about harms or benefits.

Limitations

The probability of successful CPR in our sample is unknown. Findings may be different in a population who is imminently dying but still requesting CPR.

Conclusions

Participants chose CPR because they perceived life as worth living and CPR as a chance worth taking. Participants did not want to be left in a severely debilitated state but did not have accurate information about this risk.

Implications

Decision making about CPR in-hospital can be improved if it is grounded in accurate risk understanding and the patient's values and wishes.