Recommendations to limit life support: a national survey of critical care physicians

Defining Intensivists: A Retrospective Analysis of the Published Studies in the United States, 2010-2020

OBJECTIVES

The Society of Critical Care Medicine last published an intensivist definition in 1992. Subsequently, there have been many publications relating to intensivists. Our purpose is to assess how contemporary studies define intensivist physicians.

DESIGN

Systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2010-2020) for publication titles with the terms intensivist, and critical care or intensive care physician, specialist, or consultant. We included studies focusing on adult U.S. intensivists and excluded non-data-driven reports, non-U.S. publications, and pediatric or neonatal ICU reports. We aggregated the study title intensivist nomenclatures and parsed Introduction and Method sections to discern the text used to define intensivists. Fourteen parameters were found and grouped into five definitional categories: A) No definition, B) Background training and certification, C) Works in ICU, D) Staffing, and E) Database related. Each study was re-evaluated against these parameters and grouped into three definitional classes (single, multiple, or no definition). The prevalence of each parameter is compared between groups using Fisher exact test.

SETTING

U.S. adult ICUs and databases.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 657 studies, 105 (16%) met inclusion criteria. Within the study titles, 17 phrases were used to describe an intensivist; these were categorized as intensivist in 61 titles (58%), specialty intensivist in 30 titles (29%), and ICU/critical care physician in 14 titles (13%). Thirty-one studies (30%) used a single parameter (B-E) as their definition, 63 studies (60%) used more than one parameter (B-E) as their definition, and 11 studies (10%) had no definition (A). The most common parameter "Works in ICU" (C) in 52 studies (50%) was more likely to be used in conjunction with other parameters rather than as a standalone parameter (multiple parameters vs single-parameter studies; 73% vs 17%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistency of intensivist nomenclature or definitions in contemporary adult intensivist studies in the United States.

Addressing clinician moral distress: Implications from a mixed methods evaluation during Covid-19

Clinician moral distress has been documented over the past several decades as occurring within numerous healthcare disciplines, often in relation to clinicians' involvement in patients' end-of-life decision-making. The resulting harms impact clinician well-being, patient well-being, and healthcare system functioning. Given Covid-19's catastrophic death toll and associated demands on end-of-life decision-making processes, the pandemic represents a particularly important context within which to understand clinician moral distress. Thus, we conducted a convergent mixed methods study to examine its prevalence, associations with clinicians' demographic and professional characteristics, and contributing circumstances among Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians. The study, conducted in April 2021, consisted of a cross-sectional on-line survey of VA clinicians at 20 VA Medical Centers with professional jurisdiction to place life-sustaining treatment orders working who were from a number of select specialties. The survey collected quantitative data on respondents' demographics, clinical practice characteristics, attitudes and behaviors related to goals of care conversations, intensity of moral distress during "peak-Covid," and qualitative data via an open-ended item asking for respondents to describe contributing circumstances if they had indicated any moral distress. To understand factors associated with heightened moral distress, we analyzed quantitative data using bivariate and multivariable regression analyses and qualitative data using a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic approach. Mixed methods analysis followed, whereby we compared the quantitative and qualitative datasets and integrated findings at the analytic level. Out of 3,396 eligible VA clinicians, 323 responded to the survey (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most respondents (81%) reported at least some moral distress during peak-Covid. In a multivariable logistic regression, female gender (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.53-7.37) was associated with greater odds of moral distress, and practicing in geriatrics/palliative care (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.87) and internal medicine/family medicine/primary care (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.98) were associated with reduced odds of moral distress compared to medical subspecialties. From the 191 respondents who completed the open-ended item, five qualitative themes emerged as moral distress contributors: 1) patient visitation restrictions, 2) anticipatory actions, 3) clinical uncertainty related to Covid, 4) resource shortages, and 5) personal risk of contracting Covid. Mixed methods analysis found that quantitative results were consistent with these last two qualitative themes. In sum, clinician moral distress was prevalent early in the pandemic. This moral distress was associated with individual-, system-, and situation-level contributors. These identified contributors represent leverage points for future intervention to mitigate clinician moral distress and its negative outcomes during future healthcare crises and even during everyday clinical care.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Providing Recommendations During Goals-of-Care Conversations: A Multisite Survey

Background: Goals-of-care conversations (GoCCs) are essential for individualized end-of-life care. Shared decision-making (SDM) that elicits patients' goals and values to collaboratively make life sustaining treatment (LST) decisions is best practice. However, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic onset and associated changes to care delivery, stress on providers, and clinical uncertainty affected SDM and recommendation-making during GoCCs. Aim: To assess providers' attitudes and behaviors related to GoCCs during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify factors associated with provision of LST recommendations. Design: Survey of United States Veterans Health Administration (VA) health care providers. Setting/Participants: Health care providers from 20 VA facilities with high COVID-19 caseloads early in the pandemic who had authority to place LST orders and practiced in select specialties (n = 3398). Results: We had 323 respondents (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most were age ≥50 years (51%), female (63%), non-Hispanic white (64%), and had ≥1 GoCC per week during peak-COVID-19 (78%). Compared with pre-COVID-19, providers believed it was less appropriate and felt less comfortable giving an LST recommendation during peak-COVID-19 (p < 0.001). One-third (32%) reported either "never" or "rarely" giving an LST recommendation during GoCCs at peak-COVID-19. In adjusted regression models, being a physician and discussing patients' goals and values were positively associated with giving an LST recommendation (B = 0.380, p = 0.031 and B = 0.400, p < 0.001, respectively) at peak-COVID-19. Conclusion: Providers who discuss patients' preferences and values are more likely to report giving a recommendation; both behaviors are markers of SDM during GoCCs. Our findings suggest potential areas for training in conducting patient-centered GoCCs.

Recommendation-making in the emergency department: A qualitative study of how Canadian emergency physicians guide treatment decisions about resuscitation in critically ill patients

Study Objective

Emergency physicians are frequently responsible for making time-sensitive decisions around the provision of life-sustaining treatment. These decisions can involve goals of care or code status discussion, which will often substantially alter a patient's care pathway. A central part of these conversations that has received relatively little attention are recommendations for care. By proposing a best course of action or treatment via a recommendation, a clinician can ensure that their patients receive care that is concordant with their values. The objective of this study is to explore emergency physicians' attitudes toward recommendations about resuscitation in critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

We recruited Canadian emergency physicians via multiple recruitment strategies to ensure maximum variation sampling. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted until thematic saturation occurred. Participants were asked about their perspectives and experiences with respect to recommendation-making in critically ill patients and to identify areas for improvement in this process in the ED. We used a qualitative descriptive approach and thematic analysis to identify themes around recommendation-making in the ED for critically ill patients.

Results

Sixteen emergency physicians agreed to participate. We identified four themes and multiple subthemes. Major themes included identification of the roles and responsibilities of the emergency physician (EP) with respect to making a recommendation, the logistics or process of making a recommendation, barriers to making a recommendation, and how to improve recommendation-making and goals of care conversations in the ED.

Conclusion

Emergency physicians provided a range of perspectives on the role of recommendation-making in critically ill patients in the ED. Several barriers to the inclusion of a recommendation were identified and many physicians provided ideas on how to improve goals of care conversations, the recommendation-making process, and ensure that critically ill patients receive care that is concordant with their values.

Variability of Prognostic Communication in Critically Ill Neurologic Patients: A Pilot Multicenter Mixed-Methods Study

IMPORTANCE

Withdrawal-of-life-sustaining treatments (WOLST) rates vary widely among critically ill neurologic patients (CINPs) and cannot be solely attributed to patient and family characteristics. Research in general critical care has shown that clinicians prognosticate to families with high variability. Little is known about how clinicians disclose prognosis to families of CINPs, and whether any associations exist with WOLST.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to demonstrate feasibility of audio-recording clinician-family meetings for CINPs at multiple centers and characterize how clinicians communicate prognosis during these meetings. Secondary: to explore associations of 1) clinician, family, or patient characteristics with clinicians' prognostication approaches and 2) prognostication approach and WOLST.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Forty-three audio-recorded clinician-family meetings during which prognosis was discussed from seven U.S. centers for 39 CINPs with 88 family members and 27 clinicians.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Two investigators qualitatively coded transcripts using inductive methods (inter-rater reliability > 80%) to characterize how clinicians prognosticate. We then applied univariate and multivariable multinomial and binomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Clinicians used four distinct prognostication approaches: Authoritative (21%; recommending treatments without discussing values and preferences); Informational (23%; disclosing just the prognosis without further discussions); advisory (42%; disclosing prognosis followed by discussion of values and preferences); and responsive (14%; eliciting values and preferences, then disclosing prognosis). Before adjustment, prognostication approach was associated with center (p < 0.001), clinician specialty (neurointensivists vs non-neurointensivists; p = 0.001), patient age (p = 0.08), diagnosis (p = 0.059), and meeting length (p = 0.03). After adjustment, only clinician specialty independently predicted prognostication approach (p = 0.027). WOLST decisions occurred in 41% of patients and were most common under the advisory approach (56%). WOLST was more likely in older patients (p = 0.059) and with more experienced clinicians (p = 0.07). Prognostication approach was not independently associated with WOLST (p = 0.198).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

It is feasible to audio-record sensitive clinician-family meetings about CINPs in multiple ICUs. We found that clinicians prognosticate with high variability. Our data suggest that larger studies are warranted in CINPs to examine the role of clinicians' variable prognostication in WOLST decisions.

Prognosticating Outcomes and Nudging Decisions with Electronic Records in the Intensive Care Unit Trial Protocol

Expert recommendations to discuss prognosis and offer palliative options for critically ill patients at high risk of death are variably heeded by intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. How to best promote such communication to avoid potentially unwanted aggressive care is unknown. The PONDER-ICU (Prognosticating Outcomes and Nudging Decisions with Electronic Records in the ICU) study is a 33-month pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of two electronic health record (EHR) interventions designed to increase ICU clinicians' engagement of critically ill patients at high risk of death and their caregivers in discussions about all treatment options, including care focused on comfort. We hypothesize that the quality of care and patient-centered outcomes can be improved by requiring ICU clinicians to document a functional prognostic estimate (intervention A) and/or to provide justification if they have not offered patients the option of comfort-focused care (intervention B). The trial enrolls all adult patients admitted to 17 ICUs in 10 hospitals in North Carolina with a preexisting life-limiting illness and acute respiratory failure requiring continuous mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. Eligibility is determined using a validated algorithm in the EHR. The sequence in which hospitals transition from usual care (control), to intervention A or B and then to combined interventions A + B, is randomly assigned. The primary outcome is hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes include other clinical outcomes, palliative care process measures, and nurse-assessed quality of dying and death.Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03139838).

Perceptions of Medical Providers on Morality and Decision-Making Capacity in Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment and Suicide

BACKGROUND

This study attempts to understand if medical providers beliefs about the moral permissibility of honoring patient-directed refusals of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are tied to their beliefs about the patient's decision-making capacity. The study aims to answer: 1) does concern about a patient's treatment decision-making capacity relate to beliefs about whether it is morally acceptable to honor a refusal of LST, 2) are there differences between provider types in assessments of decision-making capacity and the moral permissibility to refuse LST, and 3) do provider demographics impact beliefs about decision-making capacity and the moral permissibility to refuse LST. Methods: A mixed-methods survey using Likert assessment and vignette-based questions was administered to medical providers within a single health system in the upper Midwest (N = 714) to assess their perspectives on the moral acceptance and decision-making capacity in cases of withholding and withdrawing treatment and suicide. Results: Behavioral health providers report accepting of the moral permissibility of suicide (91.2%) more than either medical providers (77.2%) or surgeons (74.4%) (n = 283). Decision-making capacity was questioned more in the vignettes of the patients refusing life-saving surgery (36%) and voluntarily starvation (40.8%) than in the vignette of the patient requesting to deactivate a pacemaker (13%) (n = 283). Behavioral health providers were more concerned about the capacity to refuse life-saving surgery (55.9%) than medical providers (33.8%) or surgeons (23.1%) (n = 283). Conclusions: Respondents endorse the moral permissibility of persons to withhold or withdraw from treatment regardless of motive. Clinical concerns about a patient's treatment decision-making capacity do not strongly correlate to views about the moral permissibility of honoring refusals of LST. Different provider types appear to have different thresholds for when to question treatment decision-making capacity. Behavioral health providers tend to question treatment decision-making capacity to refuse LST more than non-behavioral health providers.

Time-limited trial of intensive care treatment: an overview of current literature

In critically ill patients, it is frequently challenging to identify who will benefit from admission to the intensive care unit and life-sustaining interventions when the chances of a meaningful outcome are unclear. In addition, the acute illness not only affects the patients but also family members or surrogates who often are overwhelmed and unable to make thoughtful decisions. In these circumstances, a time-limited trial (TLT) of intensive care treatment can be helpful. A TLT is an agreement to initiate all necessary treatments or treatments with clearly delineated limitations for a certain period of time to gain a more realistic understanding of the patient's chances of a meaningful recovery or to ascertain the patient's wishes and values. In this article, we discuss current research on different aspects of TLTs in the intensive care unit. We propose how and when to use TLTs, discuss how much time should be taken for a TLT, give an overview of the potential impact of TLTs on healthcare resources, describe ethical challenges concerning TLTs, and discuss how to evaluate a TLT.

Characterizing the Role of U.S. Surgeons in the Provision of Palliative Care: A Systematic Review and Mixed-Methods Meta-Synthesis

CONTEXT

The provision of palliative care varies appropriately by clinical factors such as patient age and severity of disease and also varies by provider practice and specialty. Surgical patients are persistently less likely to receive palliative care than their medical counterparts for reasons that are not clear.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to characterize surgeon-specific determinants of palliative care in seriously ill and dying patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature focused on surgery and palliative care within PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, and Ovid Medline databases from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2016 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quantitative and qualitative studies with primary data evaluating surgeons' attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors or experiences in care for seriously ill and dying patients were selected for full review by at least two study team members based on predefined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted based on a predetermined instrument and compared across studies using thematic analysis in a meta-synthesis of qualitative and quantitative findings.

RESULTS

A total of 2589 abstracts were identified and screened, and 35 articles (26 quantitative and nine qualitative) fulfilled criteria for full review. Among these, 17 articles explored practice and attitudes of surgeons regarding palliative and end-of-life care, 11 articles assessed training in palliative care, five characterized surgical decision making, one described behaviors of surgeons caring for seriously ill and dying patients, and one explicitly identified barriers to use of palliative care. Four major themes across studies affected receipt of palliative care for surgical patients: 1) surgeons' experience and knowledge, 2) surgeons' attitudes, 3) surgeons' preferences and decision making for treatment, and 4) perceived barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the articles reviewed, surgeons overall demonstrated insight into the benefits of palliative care but reported limited knowledge and comfort as well as a multitude of challenges to introducing palliative care to their patients. These findings indicate a need for wider implementation of strategies that allow optimal integration of palliative care with surgical decision making.

Rationale and Design of the Randomized Evaluation of Default Access to Palliative Services (REDAPS) Trial

The substantial nationwide investment in inpatient palliative care services stems from their great promise to improve patient-centered outcomes and reduce costs. However, robust experimental evidence of these benefits is lacking. The Randomized Evaluation of Default Access to Palliative Services (REDAPS) study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial designed to test the efficacy and costs of specialized palliative care consultative services for hospitalized patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, or end-stage renal disease, as well as the overall effectiveness of ordering such services by default. Additional aims are to identify the types of services that are most beneficial and the types of patients most likely to benefit, including comparisons between ward and intensive care unit patients. We hypothesize that patient-centered outcomes can be improved without increasing costs by simply changing the default option for palliative care consultation from opt-in to opt-out for patients with life-limiting illnesses. Patients aged 65 years or older are enrolled at 11 hospitals using an integrated electronic health record. As a pragmatic trial designed to enroll between 12,000 and 15,000 patients, eligibility is determined using a validated, electronic health record-based algorithm, and all outcomes are captured via the electronic health record and billing systems data. The time at which each hospital transitions from control, opt-in palliative care consultation to intervention, opt-out consultation is randomly assigned. The primary outcome is a composite measure of in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Secondary outcomes include palliative care process measures and clinical and economic outcomes. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02505035).

Recommendations to Surrogates at the End of Life: A Critical Narrative Review of the Empirical Literature and a Normative Analysis

Physician recommendations have historically been a part of shared decision making. Recent literature has challenged the idea that physician recommendations should be part of shared decision making at the end of life, particularly the making of recommendations to surrogates of incapacitated patients. Close examination of the studies and the available data on surrogate preferences for decisional authority at the end of life, however, provide an empirical foundation for a style of shared decision making that includes a physician recommendation. Moreover, there are independent ethical reasons for arguing that physician recommendations enhance rather than detract from shared decision making.

Assessing Complex Emergency Management with Clinical Case-Vignettes: A Validation Study

Objective

To evaluate whether responses to dynamic case-vignettes accurately reflect actual practices in complex emergency situations. We hypothesized that when obstetricians were faced with vignette of emergency situation identical to one they previously managed, they would report the management strategy they actually used. On the other hand, there is no reason to suppose that their response to a vignette based on a source case managed by another obstetrician would be the same as the actual management.

Methods

A multicenter vignette-based study was used in 7 French maternity units. We chose the example of severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) to study the use of case-vignettes for assessing the management of complex situations. We developed dynamic case-vignettes describing incidents of PPH in several steps, using documentation in patient files. Vignettes described the postpartum course and included multiple-choice questions detailing proposed clinical care. Each participating obstetrician was asked to evaluate 4 case-vignettes: 2 directly derived from cases they previously managed and 2 derived from other obstetricians’ cases. We compared the final treatment decision in vignette responses to those documented in the source-case by the overall agreement and the Kappa coefficient, both for the cases the obstetricians previously managed and the cases of others.

Results

Thirty obstetricians participated. Overall agreement between final treatment decisions in case-vignettes and documented care for cases obstetricians previously managed was 82% (Kappa coefficient: 0.75, 95% CI [0.62–0.88]). Overall agreement between final treatment decisions in case-vignettes and documented care in vignettes derived from other obstetricians’ cases was only 48% (Kappa coefficient: 0.30, 95% CI [0.12–0.48]). Final agreement with documented care was significantly better for cases based on their own previous cases than for others (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Dynamic case-vignettes accurately reflect actual practices in complex emergency situations. Therefore, they can be used to assess the quality of management in these situations.

Contrasting patient, family, provider, and societal goals at the end of life complicate decision making and induce variability of care after trauma

BACKGROUND

End-of-life (EoL) decision making during critical illness and injury is important in facilitating compassionate care that is congruent with patient, family, and societal expectations. Herein, we evaluate factors that may effect and induce variability in practitioner EoL decision making, particularly years in practice, use of advance directives (ADs), and cost.

METHODS

An anonymous, online survey was offered to all active members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (n = 1,359) in June 2012. Demographic information and a series of questions dealing with common potentially influential factors were included. Responses were 5-point Likert scale based.

RESULTS

A total of 375 responses (27.6%) were received. Ninety-two percent of the respondents were physicians, 70% were male, and 77% were from Level 1 trauma centers. Of respondents, 65.8% rely on family to make EoL decisions most or all of the time, while 80.7% feel family members are rarely or only sometimes in appropriate emotional states to make such choices. A significant number of practitioners felt comfortable making decisions without family input at all, more so with experienced practitioners as compared with those in practice for less than 15 years (38.2% and 24.1% respectively, p < 0.01).Of the practitioners, 59.6% rely on ADs most or all of the time, only 61.1% agree or strongly agree that ADs are useful, and only 56.3% feel families follow their loved one's ADs most or all of the time. A patient's family support or ability to pay for aftercare was rarely or never considered important by 80.1% of the practitioners, despite 85.1% reporting that quality of life postillness/injury was important most or all of the time.

CONCLUSION

Practitioner comfort and motivation to influence EoL decision making varies with experience level. ADs are not uniformly perceived to be helpful, and costs are uncommonly considered. To improve EoL quality, these factors need to be considered.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Care management study, level IV.

To treat or not to treat: withholding treatment in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Decisions to limit life-sustaining therapy (DLLST) in the ICU are used to uphold patients' autonomy, protect them from non-beneficial treatment and fairly distribute resources. The institution of these decisions is complex, with a variety of qualitative and quantitative data published. This review aims to summarize the main issues and review the contemporary research findings on this subject.

RECENT FINDINGS

DLLST are used in a variety of clinical and non-clinical situations, before and after ICU admission, and are not always part of end-of-life management. There are many dilemmas and barriers that beset their institution. Many ICU physicians feel inadequately trained to carry them out and they are frequently a source of conflict. A variety of strategies have been examined to improve their institution, including advanced directives, intensive communication strategies and family information leaflets, many of which have improved patient and family-centred outcomes.

SUMMARY

There are a number of uncertainties that beset the institution of DLLST in the ICU; however, a variety of research has improved our ability to understand and implement them. This review frames some of the dilemmas and discusses some of the procedural strategies that have been used to improve outcomes.

The Influence of Surrogate Decision Makers on Clinical Decision Making for Critically Ill Adults

PURPOSE

Intensive care unit patients rarely have decisional capacity and often surrogates make clinical decisions on their behalf. Little is known about how surrogate characteristics may influence end-of-life decision making for these patients. This study sought to determine how surrogate characteristics impact physicians' approach to end-of-life decision making.

METHODS

From March 2011 to August 2011, a survey was fielded to 1000 randomly sampled critical care physicians using a modified Dillman approach. The survey included a hypothetical vignette to examine how physicians' approach varied based on patient age, patient-surrogate relationship, surrogate-staff relationship, basis for surrogate's stated preferences, and surrogate's understanding of patient's condition. Outcomes included physicians' beliefs regarding (1) appropriateness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); (2) appropriate locus of decision making for the patient; (3) degree to which a physician would try to influence a surrogate if disagreement was present; and (4) physician strategies to discussing end-of-life with surrogates.

RESULTS

Of 922 eligible physicians, 608 (66%) participated. Across all vignettes, CPR was felt to be less appropriate and surrogates less likely to be given priority with an older rather than younger patient (15% vs 63% and 50% vs 65%, both P values <.001). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was considered less appropriate when the surrogate-patient relationship was not close (34% vs 44%, P = .03) and the surrogate's understanding was poor (34% vs 43%, P = .05). No other surrogate characteristics examined yielded statistically significant associations.

CONCLUSION

Some surrogate characteristics may modify clinicians' beliefs and practices regarding end-of-life care, suggesting the nuances of the surrogate-physician relationship and clinical decision making for critically ill patients.