Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement

Opportunities for Improvement in Caring for Critically Ill Patients Who Are Incapacitated With No Evident Advance Directives or Surrogates: A Nested Case-Control Study

Providing ethical, timely, and goal-concordant care for critical patients who are incapacitated with no evident advance directives or surrogates (INEADS) can pose challenges to nursing staff and other care team members and may delay or alter care trajectories. In a nested case-control study, we aimed to determine whether critical care patients who are INEADS have different hospitalization timelines, consultative services, and discharge dispositions relative to matched control subjects. Data were obtained from the publicly accessible Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database of 23 904 adult critical care hospitalizations in a Boston, Massachusetts, hospital from 2001 to 2012. Using natural language processing and verifying by manual chart review, we identified 40 patients in this cohort who were INEADS and matched them 1:1 with control subjects based on age, sex, and comorbidity index. Average length of hospitalization was 11 days for patients and 9 days for control subjects; average time until code status documentation was 8 days for patients and 6 days for control subjects, and average time until documentation of social work involvement was 9 days for patients and 2 days for control subjects. Although these differences were not statistically significant, procedures to support timely ethical decision-making for patients who are INEADS require attention.

Healthcare Professionals' Wishes Toward End-of-Life Conversations: A Descriptive Correlational Study (ConVita Study)

OBJECTIVE

End-of-life conversations could improve anxiety, depression, and quality of life of patients and their families. Most patients believe it is important to discuss prognosis with their healthcare professionals, however only a minority reports to do so. The aim of this study was to describe healthcare professionals' wishes regarding end-of-life if they were in hypothetical end-of-life condition.

METHODS

In this descriptive-correlational study, 467 healthcare providers were selected using the census sampling method. Physicians, nurses, or nursing assistants who worked in the oncohematology, internal medicine, intermediate care, surgical areas, or hospices of three hospitals in the northwest of Italy were included. All participants were included if they agreed to participate in the study and signed a written informed consent. A modified version of the guide "Your Conversation Starter Kit," the ConVita Questionnaire, was used. A logistic regression to analyze possible associations between personal and professional characteristics and end-of-life wishes of healthcare professionals was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 747 professionals who agreed to participate, 467 questionnaires were returned. Compared to physicians, nurses (OR = 2.551 [95% CI 1.306-4.982], P = .006) and nursing assistants (OR = 2.755 [95% CI 1.218-6.23], P = .015) were more likely to prefer receiving treatments regardless the discomfort these might cause. This was less likely to occur when professionals attended palliative care courses (OR = 0.655 [95% CI 0.431-0.997], P = .048). Professionals with longer working experience in the same unit were more likely to give more importance to the quality of life than to the amount of medical care (OR = 1.041 [95% CI 1.006-1.078], P = .022). Compared to physicians, nurses were more likely to worry about not receiving sufficient treatments (OR = 2.883 [95% CI 1.526-5.446], P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes to a better understanding of healthcare professionals' wishes if they were in the hypothetical condition of end of life. Healthcare professionals need support to gain insight into end-of-life issues.

IMPLICATION FOR NURSING PRACTICE

By better understanding healthcare professionals' perspective on end of life, this study may help build the support they need to feel better equipped to address end-of-life conversations with patients and families. Palliative care courses may raise healthcare professionals' awareness toward a timely start of end-of-life conversations.

Neurocritical Care in 2024: Where are We Headed?

Providing specialized care to critically ill neurology patients has improved outcomes for patients with neurological emergencies; however, there are still some gaps in neurocritical care (NCC) that offer opportunities for improvement. Among these gaps, improving education of the multidisciplinary NCC team, targeting individualized treatments for neurologically critically ill patients, and reducing disparities for undeserved patients as well as disadvantaged areas are priorities to advance the field. This review focuses on the current challenges neurointensivists face, including difficulties in neuroprognostication, ethical challenges in end-of-life care, and neuropalliative care. Challenges also involve providing specific NCC education for the multidisciplinary NCC team, as well as advancing research to provide treatments for critically ill neurological patients. Finally, the authors describe future directions that can take NCC to the next level.

What Is It That You Want Me To Do? Guidance for Ethics Consultants in Complex Discharge Cases

Some of the most difficult consultations for an ethics consultant to resolve are those in which the patient is ready to leave the acute-care setting, but the patient or family refuses the plan, or the plan is impeded by deficiencies in the healthcare system. Either way, the patient is "stuck" in the hospital and the ethics consultant is called to help get the patient "unstuck." These encounters, which we call "complex discharges," are beset with tensions between the interests of the institution and the interests of the patient as well as tensions within the ethics consultant whose commitments are shaped both by the values of the organization and the values of their own profession. The clinical ethics literature on this topic is limited and provides little guidance. What is needed is guidance for consultants operating at the bedside and for those participating at a higher organizational level. To fill this gap, we offer guidance for facilitating a fair process designed to resolve the conflict without resorting to coercive legal measures. We reflect on three cases to argue that the approach of the consultant is generally one of mediation in these types of disputes. For patients who lack decision making capacity and lack a surrogate decision maker, we recommend the creation of a complex discharge committee within the organization so that ethics consultants can properly discharge their duties to assist patients who are unable to advocate for themselves through a fair and transparent process.

The Ethical Standard for End-of-Life Decisions for Unrepresented Patients

There has been increasing awareness of the medical and moral challenges in the care of unrepresented patients: those who cannot make their own medical decisions, do not have any surrogate decision maker, and have not indicated their treatment preferences. Most discussions have focused on procedural questions such as who should make decisions for these patients. An issue that has not gotten enough attention is the ethical standard that should govern medical decision making. I explore the question of which ethical standard provides better justification for end-of-life decisions for unrepresented patients. Two options are considered: the conventional and less demanding best interest standard, and the novel and more demanding medical futility standard. I explain the similarities and differences between these two standards, examine arguments for and against each one, and suggest that the medical futility standard is ethically superior and should replace the established best interest standard.

Position statement of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions in the context of palliative care

The issue of withrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions is an important source of controversy among healthcare professionals caring for patients with serious illnesses. Misguided decisions, both in terms of the introduction/maintenance and the withdrawal/withholding of these measures, represent a source of avoidable suffering for patients, their loved ones, and healthcare professionals. This document represents the position statement of the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on this issue and establishes seven principles to guide, from a bioethical perspective, the approach to situations related to this topic in the context of palliative care in Brazil. The position statement establishes the equivalence between the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining interventions and the inadequacy related to initiating or maintaining such measures in contexts where they are in disagreement with the values and care goals defined together with patients and their families. Additionally, the position statement distinguishes strictly futile treatments from potentially inappropriate treatments and elucidates their critical implications for the appropriateness of the medical decision-making process in this context. Finally, we address the issue of conscientious objection and its limits, determine that the ethical commitment to the relief of suffering should not be influenced by the decision to employ or not employ life-sustaining interventions and warn against the use of language that causes patients/families to believe that only one of the available options related to the use or nonuse of these interventions will enable the relief of suffering.

The conceptual injustice of the brain death standard

Family disputes over the diagnosis of brain death have caused much controversy in the bioethics literature over the conceptual validity of the brain death standard. Given the tenuous status of brain death as death, it is pragmatically fruitful to reframe intractable debates about the metaphysical nature of brain death as metalinguistic disputes about its conceptual deployment. This new framework leaves the metaphysical debate open and brings into focus the social functions that are served by deploying the concept of brain death. In doing so, it highlights the epistemic injustice of medicolegal authorities that force people to uniformly accept brain death as a diagnosis of death based on normative considerations of institutional interests, such as saving hospital resources and organ supplies, rather than empirical evidence of brain death as death, which is insufficient at best and nonexistent at worst. In light of this injustice, I propose the rejection of the uniform standard of brain death in favor of a choice-based system that respects families' individualized views of death.

Limitation of life sustaining therapy in disorders of consciousness: ethics and practice

Clinical conversations surrounding the continuation or limitation of life-sustaining therapies (LLST) are both challenging and tragically necessary for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) following severe brain injury. Divergent cultural, philosophical and religious perspectives contribute to vast heterogeneity in clinical approaches to LLST-as reflected in regional differences and inter-clinician variability. Here we provide an ethical analysis of factors that inform LLST decisions among patients with DoC. We begin by introducing the clinical and ethical challenge and clarifying the distinction between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining therapy. We then describe relevant factors that influence LLST decision-making including diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, perception of pain, defining a 'good' outcome, and the role of clinicians. In concluding sections, we explore global variation in LLST practices as they pertain to patients with DoC and examine the impact of cultural and religious perspectives on approaches to LLST. Understanding and respecting the cultural and religious perspectives of patients and surrogates is essential to protecting patient autonomy and advancing goal-concordant care during critical moments of medical decision-making involving patients with DoC.

Hospital Policy Variation in Addressing Decisions to Withhold and Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment

BACKGROUND

Sociodemographic disparities in physician decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment exist. Little is known about the content of hospital policies that guide physicians involved in these decisions.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the prevalence of US hospitals with policies that address withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment; how do these policies approach ethically controversial scenarios; and how do these policies address sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This national cross-sectional survey assessed the content of hospital policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. We distributed the survey electronically to American Society for Bioethics and Humanities members between July and August 2023 and descriptively analyzed responses.

RESULTS

Among 93 respondents from hospitals or hospital systems representing all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, 92% had policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Hospitals varied in their stated guidance, permitting life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or withdrawn in cases of patient or surrogate request (82%), physiologic futility (81%), and potentially inappropriate treatment (64%). Of the 8% of hospitals with policies that addressed patient sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, these policies provided opposing recommendations to either exclude sociodemographic factors in decision-making or actively acknowledge and incorporate these factors in decision-making. Only 3% of hospitals had policies that recommended collecting and maintaining information about patients for whom life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn that could be used to identify disparities in decision-making.

INTERPRETATION

Although most surveyed US hospital policies addressed withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, these policies varied widely in criteria and processes. Surveyed policies also rarely addressed sociodemographic disparities in these decisions.

Ethical Considerations in Neuroprognostication Following Acute Brain Injury

Neuroprognostication following acute brain injury (ABI) is a complex process that involves integrating vast amounts of information to predict a patient's likely trajectory of neurologic recovery. In this setting, critically evaluating salient ethical questions is imperative, and the implications often inform high-stakes conversations about the continuation, limitation, or withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. While neuroprognostication is central to these clinical "life-or-death" decisions, the ethical underpinnings of neuroprognostication itself have been underexplored for patients with ABI. In this article, we discuss the ethical challenges of individualized neuroprognostication including parsing and communicating its inherent uncertainty to surrogate decision-makers. We also explore the population-based ethical considerations that arise in the context of heterogenous prognostication practices. Finally, we examine the emergence of artificial intelligence-aided neuroprognostication, proposing an ethical framework relevant to both modern and longstanding prognostic tools.

Informed Consent and Decision-Making for Patients with Acquired Cognitive Impairment

Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal requirement grounded in the principle of autonomy. Cognitive impairment may often interfere with decision-making capacity necessitating alternative models of ethically sound deliberation. In cases where the patient lacks decision-making capacity, one must determine the appropriate decision-maker and the criteria used in making a medical decision appropriate for the patient. In this article, I critically discuss the traditional approaches of IC, advance directives, substituted judgment, and best interests. A further suggestion is that thinking about sufficient reasons for or against a course of action is a conceptual enrichment in addition to the concepts of interests and well-being. Finally, I propose another model of collective consensus-seeking decision-making.

Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor

The patient preference predictor (PPP) is a proposed computer-based algorithm that would predict the treatment preferences of decisionally incapacitated patients. Incorporation of a PPP into the decision-making process has the potential to improve implementation of the substituted judgement standard by providing more accurate predictions of patients' treatment preferences than reliance on surrogates alone. Yet, critics argue that methods for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients should be judged on a number of factors beyond simply providing them with the treatments they would have chosen for themselves. These factors include the extent to which the decision-making process recognises patients' freedom to choose and relies on evidence the patient themselves would take into account when making treatment decisions. These critics conclude that use of a PPP should be rejected on the grounds that it is inconsistent with these factors, especially as they relate to proper respect for patient autonomy. In this paper, we review and evaluate these criticisms. We argue that they do not provide reason to reject use of a PPP, thus supporting efforts to develop a full-scale PPP and to evaluate it in practice.

Medical Decision-Making Practices for Unrepresented Residents in Nursing Homes

OBJECTIVES

Unrepresented adults are individuals who lack decision-making capacity and have neither an available surrogate decision maker nor an applicable advance directive. Currently, the prevalence of unrepresented nursing home (NH) residents and how medical decisions are made is unknown. We examined (1) the prevalence of unrepresented NH residents, (2) NH policies and procedures to address medical decision making for those residents, and (3) NH staff's perceptions of medical decision making for unrepresented residents.

DESIGN

We reviewed resident medical records and NH policy and procedure documents. We also conducted a survey of NH staff using an investigator-developed questionnaire.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-six staff members recruited from 3 NHs (433 residents total) in 1 metropolitan area of Georgia, USA.

METHODS

Medical records and policy and procedure documents were reviewed using preset criteria. The survey included 31 structured and open-ended questions regarding medical decision-making practices for unrepresented residents (eg, awareness of medical decision-making processes, experiences in medical decision making, and suggestions to improve practice). We used descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Four residents (1%) met the criteria of being unrepresented. We found no written statements that specifically addressed medical decision making for unrepresented residents in the participating NHs. Of 66 survey participants, 11 had been involved in medical decision making for unrepresented residents. The most common decisions involved do-not-resuscitate orders, major medical and surgical treatments, and life-sustaining treatments. These decisions were made primarily by relying on the resident's physician or through discussions within the facility's interdisciplinary team. Suggestions included adopting explicit mechanisms or protocols related to decision making for unrepresented residents, education/training, and resources for group-based decision making.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although prevalence in the 3 NHs was low, NH care providers, ethical and legal professionals, and other key stakeholders should discuss practical approaches and policies to systematically identify unrepresented residents and to improve NHs' medical decision-making practices for them.

Jewish Values in Medical Decision-making for Unrepresented Patients: A Ritualized Approach

Determining appropriate care for patients who cannot speak for themselves is one of the most challenging issues in contemporary healthcare and medical decision-making. While there has been much discussion relating to patients who left some sort of instructions, such as an advance directive, or have someone to speak on their behalf, less has been written on caring for patients who have nobody at all available to speak for them. It is thus crucial to develop clear and rigorous guidelines to properly care for these patients. The Jewish tradition offers an important perspective on caring for unrepresented patients and determining approaches to guide care providers. This article develops an understanding of fundamental Jewish principles that can provide clear guidance in navigating this challenge. It applies those values to a specific set of suggested behaviors, one of which adds a novel ritualized component to what has been recommended by bioethicists in the past.

In This Together: Navigating Ethical Challenges Posed by Family Clustering during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Harrowing stories reported in the media describe Covid-19 ravaging through families. This essay reports professional experiences of this phenomenon, family clustering, as encountered during the pandemic's spread across Southern California. We identify three ethical challenges following from it: Family clustering impedes shared decision-making by reducing available surrogate decision-makers for incapacitated patients, increases the emotional burdens of surrogate decision-makers, and exacerbates health disparities for and the suffering of people of color at increased likelihood of experiencing family clustering. We propose that, in response to these challenges, efforts in advance care planning be expanded, emotional support offered to surrogates and family members be increased, more robust state guidance be issued on ethical decision-making for unrepresented patients, ethics consultation be increased in the setting of conflict following from family clustering dynamics, and health care professionals pay more attention to systemic and personal racial biases and inequities that affect patient care and the surrogate experience.

Unrepresented Adults Face Adverse Healthcare Consequences: The Role of Guardians, Public Guardianship Reform, and Alternative Policy Solutions

Persons without family or friends to serve as healthcare agents may become "unrepresented" in healthcare, with no one to serve as healthcare agents when decisional support is needed. Surveys of clinicians (N = 81) and attorneys/guardians (N = 23) in Massachusetts reveal that unrepresented adults experience prolonged hospital stays (66%), delays in receiving palliative care (52%), delays in treatment (49%), and other negative consequences. Clinicians say guardianship is most helpful in resolving issues related to care transitions, medical treatment, quality of life, housing, finances, and safety. However, experiences with guardianship are varied, with delays often/always in court appointments (43%) and actions after appointments (24%). Policy solutions include legal reform, education, and alternate models.

Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Advance care planning (ACP) has shown benefit in some, but not all, studies. It is important to understand the utility of ACP. We conducted a scoping review to identify promising interventions and outcomes.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

MEASUREMENTS

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for ACP randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2010, to March 3, 2020. We used standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses methods to chart study characteristics, including a standardized ACP Outcome Framework: Process (e.g., readiness), Action (e.g., communication), Quality of Care (e.g., satisfaction), Health Status (e.g., anxiety), and Healthcare Utilization. Differences between arms of P < .05 were deemed positive.

RESULTS

Of 1,464 articles, 69 met eligibility; 94% were rated high quality. There were variable definitions, age criteria (≥18 to ≥80 years), diseases (e.g., dementia and cancer), and settings (e.g., outpatient and inpatient). Interventions included facilitated discussions (42%), video only (20%), interactive, multimedia (17%), written only (12%), and clinician training (9%). For written only, 75% of primary outcomes were positive, as were 69% for multimedia programs; 67% for facilitated discussions, 59% for video only, and 57% for clinician training. Overall, 72% of Process and 86% of Action outcomes were positive. For Quality of Care, 88% of outcomes were positive for patient-surrogate/clinician congruence, 100% for patients/surrogate/clinician satisfaction with communication, and 75% for surrogate satisfaction with patients' care, but not for goal concordance. For Health Status outcomes, 100% were positive for reducing surrogate/clinician distress, but not for patient quality of life. Healthcare Utilization data were mixed.

CONCLUSION

ACP is complex, and trial characteristics were heterogeneous. Outcomes for all ACP interventions were predominantly positive, as were Process and Action outcomes. Although some Quality of Care and Health Status outcomes were mixed, increased patient/surrogate satisfaction with communication and care and decreased surrogate/clinician distress were positive. Further research is needed to appropriately tailor interventions and outcomes for local contexts, set appropriate expectations of ACP outcomes, and standardize across studies.

Older Adults without Desired Surrogates in a Nationally Representative Sample

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Little is known about older adults who have intact capacity but do not have a desired surrogate to make decisions if their capacity becomes impaired.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample.

SETTING

National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP), 2005-2006.

PARTICIPANTS

Community-dwelling older adults without known cognitive impairment, aged 57 to 85, interviewed as part of NSHAP (n = 2,767).

MEASUREMENTS

We examined demographic, medical, and social connectedness characteristics associated with answering "no" to this question: "Do you have someone who you would like to make medical decisions for you if you were unable, as for example if you were seriously injured or very sick?" Because many states permit nuclear family to make decisions for persons with no legally appointed health care agent, we used logistic regression to identify factors associated with individuals who were ill suited to this paradigm in the sense that they had nuclear family but did not have a desired surrogate.

RESULTS

Among NSHAP respondents, 7.5% (95% confidence interval = 6.4-8.7) did not have a desired surrogate. Nearly 90% of respondents without desired surrogates had nuclear family. Compared with respondents with desired surrogates, those without desired surrogates had lower indicators of social connectedness. On average, however, they had four confidants, approximately 70% socialized at least monthly, and more than 90% could discuss their health with a confidant. Among respondents who had nuclear family, few characteristics distinguished those with and without desired surrogates.

CONCLUSION

Nearly 8% of older adults did not have a desired surrogate. Most had nuclear family and were not socially disconnected. Older adults should be asked explicitly about a desired surrogate, and strategies are needed to identify surrogates for those who do not have family or would not choose family to make decisions for them.