Sarah E. Shannon

Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis

Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.

Family satisfaction with family conferences about end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: Increased proportion of family speech is associated with increased satisfaction

Objective:Family members of critically ill patients report dissatisfaction with family-clinician communication about withdrawing life support, yet limited data exist to guide clinicians in this communication. The hypothesis of this analysis was that increased proportion of family speech during ICU family conferences would be associated with increased family satisfaction. Design:Cross-sectional study. Setting:We identified family conferences in intensive care units of four Seattle hospitals during which discussions about withdrawing life support were likely to occur. Participants:Participants were 214 family members from 51 different families. There were 36 different physicians leading the conferences, as some physicians led more than one conference. Interventions:Fifty-one conferences were audiotaped. Measurements:We measured the duration of time that families and clinicians spoke during the conference. All participants were given a survey assessing satisfaction with communication. Results:The mean conference time was 32.0 mins with an sd of 14.8 mins and a range from 7 to 74 mins. On average, family members spoke 29% and clinicians spoke 71% of the time. Increased proportion of family speech was significantly associated with increased family satisfaction with physician communication. Increased proportion of family speech was also associated with decreased family ratings of conflict with the physician. There was no association between the duration of the conference and family satisfaction. Conclusions:This study suggests that allowing family members more opportunity to speak during conferences may improve family satisfaction. Future studies should assess the effect of interventions to increase listening by critical care clinicians on the quality of communication and the family experience.

Effect of a quality-improvement intervention on end-of-life care in the intensive care unit a randomized trial

RATIONALE Because of high mortality, end-of-life care is an important component of intensive care. OBJECTIVES We evaluated the effectiveness of a quality-improvement intervention to improve intensive care unit (ICU) end-of-life care. METHODS We conducted a cluster-randomized trial randomizing 12 hospitals. The intervention targeted clinicians with five components: clinician education, local champions, academic detailing, clinician feedback of quality data, and system supports. Outcomes were assessed for patients dying in the ICU or within 30 hours of ICU discharge using surveys and medical record review. Families completed Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) and satisfaction surveys. Nurses completed the QODD. Data were collected during baseline and follow-up at each hospital (May 2004 to February 2008). We used robust regression models to test for intervention effects, controlling for site, patient, family, and nurse characteristics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS All hospitals completed the trial with 2,318 eligible patients and target sample sizes obtained for family and nurse surveys. The primary outcome, family-QODD, showed no change with the intervention (P = 0.33). There was no change in family satisfaction (P = 0.66) or nurse-QODD (P = 0.81). There was a nonsignificant increase in ICU days before death after the intervention (hazard ratio = 0.9; P = 0.07). Among patients undergoing withdrawal of mechanical ventilation, there was no change in time from admission to withdrawal (hazard ratio = 1.0; P = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS We found this intervention was associated with no improvement in quality of dying and no change in ICU length of stay before death or time from ICU admission to withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Improving ICU end-of-life care will require interventions with more direct contact with patients and families. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00685893).

Integrating Palliative and Critical Care: Evaluation of a Quality Improvement Intervention

RATIONALE Palliative care in the intensive care unit (ICU) is an important focus for quality improvement. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-faceted quality improvement intervention to improve palliative care in the ICU. METHODS We performed a single-hospital, before-after study of a quality-improvement intervention to improve palliative care in the ICU. The intervention consisted of clinician education, local champions, academic detailing, feedback to clinicians, and system support. Consecutive patients who died in the ICU were identified pre- (n = 253) and postintervention (n = 337). Families completed Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit (FS-ICU) and Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) surveys. Nurses completed the QODD. The QODD and FS-ICU were scored from 0 to 100. We used Mann-Whitney tests to assess family results and hierarchical linear modeling for nurse results. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS There were 590 patients who died in the ICU or within 24 hours of transfer; 496 had an identified family member. The response rate for family members was 55% (275 of 496) and for nurses, 89% (523/590). The primary outcome, the family QODD, showed a trend toward improvement (pre, 62.3; post, 67.1), but was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). Family satisfaction increased but not significantly. The nurse QODD showed significant improvement (pre, 63.1; post, 67.1; P < 0.01) and there was a significant reduction in ICU days before death (pre, 7.2; post, 5.8; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS We found no significant improvement in family-assessed quality of dying or in family satisfaction with care, we found but significant improvement in nurse-assessed quality of dying and reduction in ICU length of stay with an intervention to integrate palliative care in the ICU. Improving family ratings may require interventions that have more direct contact with family members.

Understanding Physicians' Skills at Providing End-of-Life Care

BACKGROUND: A framework for understanding and evaluating physicians’ skills at providing end-of-life care from the perspectives of patients, families, and health care workers will promote better quality of care at the end of life.OBJECTIVE: To develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to the quality of physicians’ care for dying patients.DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups and content analysis based on grounded theory.SETTING: Seattle, Washington.PARTICIPANTS: Eleven focus groups of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, AIDS, or cancer (79 patients); 3 groups of family members who had a loved one die of chronic disease (20 family members); 4 groups of nurses and social workers from hospice or acute care settings (27 health care workers); and 2 groups of physicians with expertise in end-of-life care (11 physicians).RESULTS: We identified 12 domains of physicians’ skills at providing end-of-life care: accessibility and continuity; team coordination and communication; communication with patients; patient education; inclusion and recognition of the family; competence; pain and symptom management; emotional support; personalization; attention to patient values; respect and humility; and support of patient decision making. Within these domains, we identified 55 specific components of physicians’ skills. Domains identified most frequently by patients and families were emotional support and communication with patients. Patients from the 3 disease groups, families, and health care workers identified all 12 domains. Investigators used transcript analyses to construct a conceptual model of physicians’ skills at providing end-of-life care that grouped domains into 5 categories.CONCLUSIONS: The 12 domains encompass the major aspects of physicians’ skills at providing high-quality end-of-life care from the perspectives of patients, their families, and health care workers, and provide a new framework for understanding, evaluating, and teaching these skills. Our findings should focus physicians, physician-educators, and researchers on communication, emotional support, and accessibility to improve the quality of end-of-life care.

Dying Patients' Need for Emotional Support and Personalized Care from Physicians: Perspectives of Patients with Terminal Illness, Families, and Health Care Providers

This study addressed the emotional and personal needs of dying patients and the ways physicians help or hinder these needs. Twenty focus groups were held with 137 individuals, including patients with chronic and terminal illnesses, family members, health care workers, and physicians. Content analyses were performed based on grounded theory. Emotional support and personalization were 2 of the 12 domains identified as important in end-of-life care. Components of emotional support were compassion, responsiveness to emotional needs, maintaining hope and a positive attitude, and providing comfort through touch. Components of personalization were treating the whole person and not just the disease, making the patient feel unique and special, and considering the patients social situation. Although the levels of emotional support and personalization varied, there was a minimal level, defined by compassion and treating the whole person and not just the disease, that physicians should strive to meet in caring for all dying patients. Participants also identified intermediate and advanced levels of physician behavior that provide emotional and personal support.

Randomized Trial of Communication Facilitators to Reduce Family Distress and Intensity of End-of-Life Care

RATIONALE Communication with family of critically ill patients is often poor and associated with family distress. OBJECTIVES To determine if an intensive care unit (ICU) communication facilitator reduces family distress and intensity of end-of-life care. METHODS We conducted a randomized trial at two hospitals. Eligible patients had a predicted mortality greater than or equal to 30% and a surrogate decision maker. Facilitators supported communication between clinicians and families, adapted communication to family needs, and mediated conflict. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Outcomes included depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among family 3 and 6 months after ICU and resource use. We identified 488 eligible patients and randomized 168. Of 352 eligible family members, 268 participated (76%). Family follow-up at 3 and 6 months ranged from 42 to 47%. The intervention was associated with decreased depressive symptoms at 6 months (P = 0.017), but there were no significant differences in psychological symptoms at 3 months or anxiety or PTSD at 6 months. The intervention was not associated with ICU mortality (25% control vs. 21% intervention; P = 0.615) but decreased ICU costs among all patients (per patient:

Physicians' Interactions with Health Care Teams and Systems in the Care of Dying Patients: Perspectives of Dying Patients, Family Members, and Health Care Professionals

75,850 control,

Integrating palliative and critical care: Description of an intervention

51,060 intervention; P = 0.042) and particularly among decedents (

Hospital variation and temporal trends in palliative and end-of-life care in the ICU.

98,220 control,