PURPOSE: Prior researchers studying end-of-life decision making (EOLDM) in intensive care units (ICUs) often have collected data retrospectively and aggregated data across units. There has been little research, however, about how cultures differ among ICUs. This research was designed to study limitation of treatment decision making in real time and to evaluate similarities and differences in the cultural contexts of 4 ICUs and the relationship of those contexts to EOLDM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ethnographic field work took place in 4 adult ICUs in a tertiary care hospital. Participants were health care providers (eg, physicians, nurses, and social workers), patients, and their family members. Participant observation and interviews took place 5 days a week for 7 months in each unit. RESULTS: The ICUs were not monolithic. There were similarities, but important differences in EOLDM were identified in formal and informal rules, meaning and uses of technology, physician roles and relationships, processes such as unit rounds, and timing of initiation of EOLDM. CONCLUSIONS: As interventions to improve EOLDM are developed, it will be important to understand how they may interact with unit cultures. Attempting to develop one intervention to be used in all ICUs is unlikely to be successful.
PURPOSE: Prior researchers studying end-of-life decision making (EOLDM) in intensive care units (ICUs) often have collected data retrospectively and aggregated data across units. There has been little research, however, about how cultures differ among ICUs. This research was designed to study limitation of treatment decision making in real time and to evaluate similarities and differences in the cultural contexts of 4 ICUs and the relationship of those contexts to EOLDM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ethnographic field work took place in 4 adult ICUs in a tertiary care hospital. Participants were health care providers (eg, physicians, nurses, and social workers), patients, and their family members. Participant observation and interviews took place 5 days a week for 7 months in each unit. RESULTS: The ICUs were not monolithic. There were similarities, but important differences in EOLDM were identified in formal and informal rules, meaning and uses of technology, physician roles and relationships, processes such as unit rounds, and timing of initiation of EOLDM. CONCLUSIONS: As interventions to improve EOLDM are developed, it will be important to understand how they may interact with unit cultures. Attempting to develop one intervention to be used in all ICUs is unlikely to be successful.
Authors: M J Kennard; T Speroff; A L Puopolo; M A Follen; L Mallatratt; R Phillips; N Desbiens; R M Califf; A F Connors Journal: Clin Nurs Res Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 2.075
Authors: Michael E Wilson; Lori M Rhudy; Beth A Ballinger; Ann N Tescher; Brian W Pickering; Ognjen Gajic Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Erin K Kross; Ruth A Engelberg; Lois Downey; Joseph Cuschieri; Matthew R Hallman; W T Longstreth; David L Tirschwell; J Randall Curtis Journal: Chest Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jill R Quinn; Madeline Schmitt; Judith Gedney Baggs; Sally A Norton; Mary T Dombeck; Craig R Sellers Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Anne C Mosenthal; David E Weissman; J Randall Curtis; Ross M Hays; Dana R Lustbader; Colleen Mulkerin; Kathleen A Puntillo; Daniel E Ray; Rick Bassett; Renee D Boss; Karen J Brasel; Margaret Campbell; Judith E Nelson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Judith Gedney Baggs; Madeline H Schmitt; Thomas J Prendergast; Sally A Norton; Craig R Sellers; Jill R Quinn; Nancy Press Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Kelly Nicole Michelson; Rachna Patel; Natalie Haber-Barker; Linda Emanuel; Joel Frader Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.624