Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk

How clinicians discuss critically ill patients' preferences and values with surrogates: an empirical analysis.

Objectives:Although shared decision making requires clinicians to discuss the patient’s values and preferences, little is known about the extent to which this occurs with surrogates in ICUs. We sought to assess whether and how clinicians talk with surrogates about incapacitated patients’ preferences and values. Design:Prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting:Five ICUs of two hospitals. Subjects:Fifty-four physicians and 159 surrogates for 71 patients. Interventions:We audio-recorded 71 conferences in which clinicians and surrogates discussed life-sustaining treatment decisions for an incapacitated patient near the end of life. Two coders independently coded each instance in which clinicians or surrogates discussed the patient’s previously expressed treatment preferences or values. They subcoded for values that are commonly important to patients near the end of life. They also coded treatment recommendations by clinicians that incorporated the patient’s preferences or values. Measurements and Main Results:In 30% of conferences, there was no discussion about the patient’s previously expressed preferences or values. In 37%, clinicians and surrogates discussed both the patient’s treatment preferences and values. In the remaining 33%, clinicians and surrogates discussed either the patient’s treatment preferences or values, but not both. In more than 88% of conferences, there was no conversation about the patient’s values regarding autonomy and independence, emotional well-being and relationships, physical function, cognitive function, or spirituality. On average, 3.8% (SD, 4.3; range, 0–16%) of words spoken pertained to patient preferences or values. Conclusions:In roughly a third of ICU family conferences for patients at high risk of death, neither clinicians nor surrogates discussed patients’ preferences or values about end-of-life decision making. In less than 12% of conferences did participants address values of high importance to most patients, such as cognitive and physical function. Interventions are needed to ensure patients’ values and preferences are elicited and integrated into end-of-life decisions in ICUs.

Quality of Communication in the ICU and Surrogate's Understanding of Prognosis

Objective:Although misperceptions about prognosis by surrogates in ICUs are common and influence treatment decisions, there is no validated, practical way to measure the effectiveness of prognostic communication. Surrogates’ subjective ratings of quality of communication have been used in other domains as markers of effectiveness of communication. We sought to determine whether surrogates’ subjective ratings of the quality of prognostic communication predict accurate expectation about prognosis by surrogates. Design:We performed a cross-sectional cohort study. Surrogates rated the quality of prognostic communication by survey. Physicians and surrogates gave their percentage estimate of patient survival on ICU day 3 on a 0–100 probability scale. We defined discordance about prognosis as a difference in the physician’s and surrogate’s estimates of greater than or equal to ±20%. We used multilevel logistic regression modeling to account for clustering under physicians and patients and adjust for confounders. Setting:Medical-surgical, trauma, cardiac, and neurologic ICUs of five U.S. academic medical centers located in California, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. Patients:Two hundred seventy-five patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome at high risk of death or severe functional impairment, their 546 surrogate decision makers, and their 150 physicians. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:There was no predictive utility of surrogates’ ratings of the quality of communication about prognosis to identify inaccurate expectations about prognosis (odds ratio, 1.04 ± 0.07; p = 0.54). Surrogates’ subjective ratings of the quality of communication about prognosis were high, as assessed with a variety of questions. Discordant prognostic estimates were present in 63.5% (95% CI, 59.0–67.9) of physician-surrogate pairs. Conclusions:Although most surrogates rate the quality of prognostic communication high, inaccurate expectations about prognosis are common among surrogates. Surrogates’ ratings of the quality of prognostic communication do not reliably predict an accurate expectation about prognosis.

Conflict Management Strategies in the ICU Differ Between Palliative Care Specialists and Intensivists.

Objectives:Conflict is common between physicians and surrogate decision makers around end-of-life care in ICU. Involving experts in conflict management improve outcomes, but little is known about what differences in conflict management styles may explain the benefit. We used simulation to examine potential differences in how palliative care specialists manage conflict with surrogates about end-of-life treatment decisions in ICUs compared with intensivists. Design:Subjects participated in a high-fidelity simulation of conflict with a surrogate in an ICU. In this simulation, a medical actor portrayed a surrogate decision maker during an ICU family meeting who refuses to follow an advance directive that clearly declines advanced life-sustaining therapies. We audiorecorded the simulation encounters and applied a coding framework to quantify conflict management behaviors, which was organized into two categories: task-focused communication and relationship building. We used negative binomial modeling to determine whether there were differences between palliative care specialists’ and intensivists’ use of task-focused communication and relationship building. Setting:Single academic medical center ICU. Subjects:Palliative care specialists and intensivists. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:We enrolled 11 palliative care specialists and 25 intensivists. The palliative care specialists were all attending physicians. The intensivist group consisted of 11 attending physicians, 9 pulmonary and critical care fellows, and 5 internal medicine residents rotating in the ICU. We excluded five residents from the primary analysis in order to reduce confounding due to training level. Physicians’ mean age was 37 years with a mean of 8 years in practice. Palliative care specialists used 55% fewer task-focused communication statements (incidence rate ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36–0.83; p = 0.005) and 48% more relationship-building statements (incidence rate ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.89–2.46; p = 0.13) compared with intensivists. Conclusions:We found that palliative care specialists engage in less task-focused communication when managing conflict with surrogates compared with intensivists. These differences may help explain the benefit of palliative care involvement in conflict and could be the focus of interventions to improve clinicians’ conflict resolution skills.