PURPOSE: Family-clinician communication in the intensive care unit (ICU) about withholding and withdrawing life support occurs frequently, yet few data exist to guide clinicians in its conduct. The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of the way this communication is currently conducted. METHODS: We identified family conferences in the ICUs of 4 Seattle-area hospitals. Conferences were eligible if the physician leading the conference believed that discussion about withholding or withdrawing life support or the delivery of bad news was likely to occur and if all conference participants consented to participate. Fifty conferences were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed by using the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: We developed 2 frameworks for describing and understanding this communication. The first framework describes communication content, including introductions, information exchange, discussions of the future, and closings. The second framework describes communication styles and support provided to families and other clinicians and includes a variety of techniques such as active listening, acknowledging informational complexity and emotional difficulty of the situation, and supporting family decision making. These frameworks identify what physicians discuss, how they present and respond to issues, and how they support families during these conferences. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes a qualitative methodology to understand clinician-family communication during the ICU family conference concerning end-of-life care and provides a frame of reference that may help guide clinicians who conduct these conferences. We also identify strategies clinicians use to improve communication and enhance the support provided. Further analyses and studies are needed to identify whether this framework or these strategies can improve family understanding or satisfaction or improve the quality care in the ICU. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Family-clinician communication in the intensive care unit (ICU) about withholding and withdrawing life support occurs frequently, yet few data exist to guide clinicians in its conduct. The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of the way this communication is currently conducted. METHODS: We identified family conferences in the ICUs of 4 Seattle-area hospitals. Conferences were eligible if the physician leading the conference believed that discussion about withholding or withdrawing life support or the delivery of bad news was likely to occur and if all conference participants consented to participate. Fifty conferences were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed by using the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: We developed 2 frameworks for describing and understanding this communication. The first framework describes communication content, including introductions, information exchange, discussions of the future, and closings. The second framework describes communication styles and support provided to families and other clinicians and includes a variety of techniques such as active listening, acknowledging informational complexity and emotional difficulty of the situation, and supporting family decision making. These frameworks identify what physicians discuss, how they present and respond to issues, and how they support families during these conferences. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes a qualitative methodology to understand clinician-family communication during the ICU family conference concerning end-of-life care and provides a frame of reference that may help guide clinicians who conduct these conferences. We also identify strategies clinicians use to improve communication and enhance the support provided. Further analyses and studies are needed to identify whether this framework or these strategies can improve family understanding or satisfaction or improve the quality care in the ICU. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
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
Authors: Corey R Fehnel; Miguel Armengol de la Hoz; Leo A Celi; Margaret L Campbell; Khalid Hanafy; Ala Nozari; Douglas B White; Susan L Mitchell Journal: Chest Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 9.410