Hashim M Mehter1, Jessica B McCannon2,3, Jack A Clark4,5, Renda Soylemez Wiener5,6. 1. 1 Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. 2. 2 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 3. 3 Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. 4 Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. 5 Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial VA Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts; and. 6. 6 The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Families of critically ill patients are often asked to make difficult decisions to pursue, withhold, or withdraw aggressive care or resuscitative measures, exercising "substituted judgment" from the imagined standpoint of the patient. Conflict may arise between intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and family members regarding the optimal course of care. OBJECTIVES: To characterize how ICU physicians approach and manage conflict with surrogates regarding end-of-life decision-making. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 18 critical care physicians from four academically affiliated hospitals. Interview transcripts were analyzed using methods of grounded theory. RESULTS: Physicians described strategies for engaging families to resolve conflict about end-of-life decision-making and tending to families' emotional health. Physicians commonly began by gauging family receptiveness to recommendations from the healthcare team. When faced with resistance to recommendations for less aggressive care, approaches ranged from deference to family wishes to various persuasive strategies designed to change families' minds, and some of those strategies may be counterproductive or harmful. The likelihood of deferring to family in the event of conflict was associated with the perceived sincerity of the family's "substituted judgment" and the ability to control patient pain and suffering. Physicians reported concern for the family's emotional needs and made efforts to alleviate the burden on families by assuming decision-making responsibility and expressing nonabandonment and commitment to the patient. Physicians were attentive to repairing damage to their relationship with the family in the aftermath of conflict. Finally, physicians described their own emotional responses to conflict, ranging from frustration and anxiety to satisfaction with successful resolution of conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care physicians described a complex and multilayered approach to physician-family conflict. The reported strategies offer insight into pragmatic approaches to achieving resolution of conflict while attending to both family and physician emotional impact, and they also highlight some potentially unhelpful or harmful behaviors that should be avoided. Further research is needed to evaluate how these strategies are perceived by families and other ICU clinicians and how they affect patient, family, and clinician outcomes.
RATIONALE: Families of critically illpatients are often asked to make difficult decisions to pursue, withhold, or withdraw aggressive care or resuscitative measures, exercising "substituted judgment" from the imagined standpoint of the patient. Conflict may arise between intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and family members regarding the optimal course of care. OBJECTIVES: To characterize how ICU physicians approach and manage conflict with surrogates regarding end-of-life decision-making. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 18 critical care physicians from four academically affiliated hospitals. Interview transcripts were analyzed using methods of grounded theory. RESULTS: Physicians described strategies for engaging families to resolve conflict about end-of-life decision-making and tending to families' emotional health. Physicians commonly began by gauging family receptiveness to recommendations from the healthcare team. When faced with resistance to recommendations for less aggressive care, approaches ranged from deference to family wishes to various persuasive strategies designed to change families' minds, and some of those strategies may be counterproductive or harmful. The likelihood of deferring to family in the event of conflict was associated with the perceived sincerity of the family's "substituted judgment" and the ability to control patientpain and suffering. Physicians reported concern for the family's emotional needs and made efforts to alleviate the burden on families by assuming decision-making responsibility and expressing nonabandonment and commitment to the patient. Physicians were attentive to repairing damage to their relationship with the family in the aftermath of conflict. Finally, physicians described their own emotional responses to conflict, ranging from frustration and anxiety to satisfaction with successful resolution of conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care physicians described a complex and multilayered approach to physician-family conflict. The reported strategies offer insight into pragmatic approaches to achieving resolution of conflict while attending to both family and physician emotional impact, and they also highlight some potentially unhelpful or harmful behaviors that should be avoided. Further research is needed to evaluate how these strategies are perceived by families and other ICU clinicians and how they affect patient, family, and clinician outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
critical care; decision-making; dissent and disputes; qualitative research
Authors: Gabriel T Bosslet; Thaddeus M Pope; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Bernard Lo; Robert D Truog; Cynda H Rushton; J Randall Curtis; Dee W Ford; Molly Osborne; Cheryl Misak; David H Au; Elie Azoulay; Baruch Brody; Brenda G Fahy; Jesse B Hall; Jozef Kesecioglu; Alexander A Kon; Kathleen O Lindell; Douglas B White Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: J M Teno; J Lynn; R S Phillips; D Murphy; S J Youngner; P Bellamy; A F Connors; N A Desbiens; W Fulkerson; W A Knaus Journal: J Clin Ethics Date: 1994
Authors: Marius Zimmerli; Kai Tisljar; Gian-Marco Balestra; Wolf Langewitz; Stephan Marsch; Sabina Hunziker Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2014-03-02 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Amber S Spijkers; Aranka Akkermans; Ellen M A Smets; Marcus J Schultz; Thomas G V Cherpanath; Job B M van Woensel; Marc van Heerde; Anton H van Kaam; Moniek van de Loo; Dick L Willems; Mirjam A de Vos Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: Joshua Tze Yin Kuek; Lisa Xin Ling Ngiam; Nur Haidah Ahmad Kamal; Jeng Long Chia; Natalie Pei Xin Chan; Ahmad Bin Hanifah Marican Abdurrahman; Chong Yao Ho; Lorraine Hui En Tan; Jun Leng Goh; Michelle Shi Qing Khoo; Yun Ting Ong; Min Chiam; Annelissa Mien Chew Chin; Stephen Mason; Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna Journal: Philos Ethics Humanit Med Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 2.464