Thomas Fassier1, Elizabeth Valour2, Cyrille Colin3, François Danet2. 1. Research Unit EAM 4129 Health, Individual, Society, Lyon University, Lyon, France. Electronic address: thomas_fassier@uhs.edu.kh. 2. Research Unit EAM 4129 Health, Individual, Society, Lyon University, Lyon, France. 3. Research Unit EAM 4129 Health, Individual, Society, Lyon University, Lyon, France; Medical Information, Evaluation and Research Unit, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We explored physicians' perceptions of and attitudes toward triage and end-of-life decisions for elderly critically ill patients at the emergency department (ED)-ICU interface. METHODS: This was a qualitative study with thematic analysis of data collected through semistructured interviews (15 emergency physicians and 9 ICU physicians) and nonparticipant observations (324 hours, 8 units, in 2 hospitals in France). RESULTS: Six themes emerged: (1) Physicians revealed a representation of elderly patients that comprised both negative and positive stereotypes, and expressed the concept of physiologic age. (2) These age-related factors influenced physicians' decisionmaking in resuscitate/not resuscitate situations. (3) Three main communication patterns framed the decisions: interdisciplinary decisions, decisions by 2 physicians on their own, and unilateral decisions by 1 physician; however, some physicians avoided decisions, facing uncertainty and conflicts. (4) Conflicts and communication gaps occurred at the ED-ICU interface and upstream of the ED-ICU interface. (5) End-of-life decisions were perceived as more complex in the ED, in the absence of family or of information about elderly patients' end-of-life preferences, and when there was conflict with relatives, time pressure, and a lack of training in end-of-life decisionmaking. (6) During decisionmaking, patients' safety and quality of care were potentially compromised by delayed or denied intensive care and lack of palliative care. CONCLUSION: These qualitative findings highlight the cognitive heuristics and biases, interphysician conflicts, and communication gaps influencing physicians' triage and end-of-life decisions for elderly critically ill patients at the ED-ICU interface and suggest strategies to improve these decisions.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We explored physicians' perceptions of and attitudes toward triage and end-of-life decisions for elderly critically ill patients at the emergency department (ED)-ICU interface. METHODS: This was a qualitative study with thematic analysis of data collected through semistructured interviews (15 emergency physicians and 9 ICU physicians) and nonparticipant observations (324 hours, 8 units, in 2 hospitals in France). RESULTS: Six themes emerged: (1) Physicians revealed a representation of elderly patients that comprised both negative and positive stereotypes, and expressed the concept of physiologic age. (2) These age-related factors influenced physicians' decisionmaking in resuscitate/not resuscitate situations. (3) Three main communication patterns framed the decisions: interdisciplinary decisions, decisions by 2 physicians on their own, and unilateral decisions by 1 physician; however, some physicians avoided decisions, facing uncertainty and conflicts. (4) Conflicts and communication gaps occurred at the ED-ICU interface and upstream of the ED-ICU interface. (5) End-of-life decisions were perceived as more complex in the ED, in the absence of family or of information about elderly patients' end-of-life preferences, and when there was conflict with relatives, time pressure, and a lack of training in end-of-life decisionmaking. (6) During decisionmaking, patients' safety and quality of care were potentially compromised by delayed or denied intensive care and lack of palliative care. CONCLUSION: These qualitative findings highlight the cognitive heuristics and biases, interphysician conflicts, and communication gaps influencing physicians' triage and end-of-life decisions for elderly critically ill patients at the ED-ICU interface and suggest strategies to improve these decisions.
Authors: Nita Khandelwal; Ann C Long; Robert Y Lee; Cara L McDermott; Ruth A Engelberg; J Randall Curtis Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Monica Escher; Stéphane Cullati; Patricia Hudelson; Mathieu Nendaz; Bara Ricou; Thomas Perneger; Pierre Dayer Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Andre Morales; Alan Murphy; Joseph B Fanning; Shasha Gao; Kevan Schultz; Daniel E Hall; Amber Barnato Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2020-12-31
Authors: Stéphane Cullati; Patricia Hudelson; Bara Ricou; Mathieu Nendaz; Thomas V Perneger; Monica Escher Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 2.655