Population Preferences for Treatments When Critically Ill: A Discrete Choice Experiment

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.

No Time to Waste: An Appraisal of Value at the End of Life

OBJECTIVES

The use of economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions may be limited by an incomplete appreciation of how patients and society perceive value at end of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate how patients, caregivers, and society value gains in quantity of life and quality of life (QOL) at the end of life. The validity of the assumptions underlying the use of the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) as a measure of preferences at end of life was also examined.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched from inception to February 22, 2021. Original research studies reporting empirical data on healthcare priority setting at end of life were included. There was no restriction on the use of either quantitative or qualitative methods. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data from studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all included studies. The primary outcomes were the value of gains in quantity of life and the value of gains in QOL at end of life.

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies involving 53 981 participants reported that gains in QOL were generally preferred over quantity of life at the end of life across stakeholder groups. Several violations of the underlying assumptions of the QALY to measure preferences at the end of life were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients, caregivers, and members of the general public prioritize gains in QOL over marginal gains in life prolongation at the end of life. These findings suggest that policy evaluations of end-of-life interventions should favor those that improve QOL. QALYs may be an inadequate measure of preferences for end-of-life care thereby limiting their use in formal economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions.

Intensive care doctors and nurses personal preferences for Intensive Care, as compared to the general population: a discrete choice experiment

Background

To test the hypothesis that Intensive Care Unit (ICU) doctors and nurses differ in their personal preferences for treatment from the general population, and whether doctors and nurses make different choices when thinking about themselves, as compared to when they are treating a patient.

Methods

Cross sectional, observational study conducted in 13 ICUs in Australia in 2017 using a discrete choice experiment survey. Respondents completed a series of choice sets, based on hypothetical situations which varied in the severity or likelihood of: death, cognitive impairment, need for prolonged treatment, need for assistance with care or requiring residential care.

Results

A total of 980 ICU staff (233 doctors and 747 nurses) participated in the study. ICU staff place the highest value on avoiding ending up in a dependent state. The ICU staff were more likely to choose to discontinue therapy when the prognosis was worse, compared with the general population. There was consensus between ICU staff personal views and the treatment pathway likely to be followed in 69% of the choices considered by nurses and 70% of those faced by doctors. In 27% (1614/5945 responses) of the nurses and 23% of the doctors (435/1870 responses), they felt that aggressive treatment would be continued for the hypothetical patient but they would not want that for themselves.

Conclusion

The likelihood of returning to independence (or not requiring care assistance) was reported as the most important factor for ICU staff (and the general population) in deciding whether to receive ongoing treatments. Goals of care discussions should focus on this, over likelihood of survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03712-4.

Appropriateness of intensive care treatments near the end of life during the COVID-19 pandemic

The patient and family perspective on the appropriateness of intensive care unit (ICU) treatments involves preferences, values and social constructs beyond medical criteria. The clinician's perception of inappropriateness is more reliant on clinical judgment. Earlier consultation with families before ICU admission and patient education on the outcomes of life-sustaining therapies may help reconcile these provider-patient disagreements. However, global emergencies like COVID-19 change the usual paradigm of end-of-life care, as it is a new disease with only scarce predictive information about it. Pandemics can also bring about the burdensome predicament of doctors having to make unwanted choices of rationing access to the ICU when demand for otherwise life-saving resources exceeds supply. Evidence-based prognostic checklists may guide treatment triage but the principles of shared decision-making are unchanged. Yet, they need to be altered with respect to COVID-19, defining likely outcomes and likelihood of benefit for the patient, and clarifying their willingness to take on the risks inherent to being in an ICU for 2 weeks for those eligible. For patients who are admitted during the prodrome of COVID-19 disease, or those who deteriorate in the second week, clinicians have some lead time in hospital to have appropriate discussions about ceilings of treatments offered based on severity.

KEY POINTS

The patient and family perspective on inappropriateness of intensive care at the end of life often differs from the clinician's opinion due to the nonmedical frame of mind.To improve satisfaction with communication on treatment goals, consultation on patient values and inclusion of social constructs in addition to clinical prediction is a good start to reconcile differences between physician and health service users' viewpoints.During pandemics, where health systems may collapse, different admission criteria driven by the need to ration services may be warranted.

EDUCATIONAL AIMS

To explore the extent to which older patients and their families are involved in decisions about appropriateness of intensive care admission or treatmentsTo understand how patients or their families define inappropriate intensive care admission or treatmentsTo reflect on the implications of decision to admit or not to admit to the intensive care unit in the face of acute resource shortages during a pandemic.