Literature DB >> 11176185

Families looking back: one year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support.

K H Abbott1, J G Sago, C M Breen, A P Abernethy, J A Tulsky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify critical psychosocial supports and areas of conflict for families of intensive care unit (ICU) patients during decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING: Six intensive care units in a tertiary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight family members, one per case, of patients previously hospitalized in the ICU who had been considered for withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two raters coded transcripts of audiotaped interviews with family members about their experiences in the ICU and the decision-making process for withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment. Codes identified sources of conflict and personal, institutional, and staff supports on which families relied during the decision-making process. Forty-six percent of respondents perceived conflict during their family member's ICU stay; the vast majority of conflicts were between themselves and the medical staff and involved communication or perceived unprofessional behavior (such as disregarding the primary caregiver in treatment discussions). Sixty-three percent of family members previously had spoken with the patient about his or her end-of-life treatment preferences, which helped to lessen the burden of the treatment decision. Forty-eight percent of family members reported the reassuring presence of clergy, and 27% commented on the need for improved physical space to have family discussion and conferences with physicians. Forty-eight percent of family members singled out their attending physician as the preferred source of information and reassurance.
CONCLUSIONS: Many families perceived conflict during end-of-life treatment discussions in the ICU. Conflicts centered on communication and behavior of staff. Families identified pastoral care and prior discussion of treatment preferences as sources of psychosocial support during these discussions. Families sought comfort in the identification and contact of a "doctor-in-charge." ICU policies such as family conference rooms and lenient visitation accommodate families during end-of-life decision-making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11176185     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-200101000-00040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  93 in total

1.  Learned helplessness among families and surrogate decision-makers of patients admitted to medical, surgical, and trauma ICUs.

Authors:  Donald R Sullivan; Xinggang Liu; Douglas S Corwin; Avelino C Verceles; Michael T McCurdy; Drew A Pate; Jennifer M Davis; Giora Netzer
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Conflict associated with decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment in intensive care units.

Authors:  C M Breen; A P Abernethy; K H Abbott; J A Tulsky
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  The power of the liver transplant waiting list: a case presentation.

Authors:  Lissi Hansen; Yi Yan; Susan J Rosenkranz
Journal:  Am J Crit Care       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 2.228

4.  Religion and end-of-life decisions in critical care: where the word meets deed.

Authors:  Dee W Ford
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-04-14       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Internal medicine trainee self-assessments of end-of-life communication skills do not predict assessments of patients, families, or clinician-evaluators.

Authors:  Robert P Dickson; Ruth A Engelberg; Anthony L Back; Dee W Ford; J Randall Curtis
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 2.947

6.  An empirical study of surrogates' preferred level of control over value-laden life support decisions in intensive care units.

Authors:  Sara K Johnson; Christopher A Bautista; Seo Yeon Hong; Lisa Weissfeld; Douglas B White
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 21.405

7.  Development and evaluation of an interprofessional communication intervention to improve family outcomes in the ICU.

Authors:  J Randall Curtis; Paul S Ciechanowski; Lois Downey; Julia Gold; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Sarah E Shannon; Patsy D Treece; Jessica P Young; Ruth A Engelberg
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Surgeon-reported conflict with intensivists about postoperative goals of care.

Authors:  Terrah J Paul Olson; Karen J Brasel; Andrew J Redmann; G Caleb Alexander; Margaret L Schwarze
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 14.766

9.  Hope, truth, and preparing for death: perspectives of surrogate decision makers.

Authors:  Latifat Apatira; Elizabeth A Boyd; Grace Malvar; Leah R Evans; John M Luce; Bernard Lo; Douglas B White
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Investigating conflict in ICUs-is the clinicians' perspective enough?

Authors:  Rachel A Schuster; Seo Yeon Hong; Robert M Arnold; Douglas B White
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 7.598

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.