Hospital-Based Physicians' Intubation Decisions and Associated Mental Models when Managing a Critically and Terminally Ill Older Patient.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the intensity of acute care treatment at the end of life is influenced more strongly by hospital and provider characteristics than patient preferences.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe physicians' mental models (i.e., thought processes) when encountering a simulated critically and terminally ill older patient, and to compare those models based on whether their treatment plan was patient preference-concordant or preference-discordant.
METHODS: Seventy-three hospital-based physicians from 3 academic medical centers engaged in a simulated patient encounter and completed a mental model interview while watching the video recording of their encounter. We used an "expert" model to code the interviews. We then used Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare the weighted mental model themes of physicians who provided preference-concordant treatment with those who provided preference-discordant treatment.
RESULTS: Sixty-six (90%) physicians provided preference-concordant treatment and 7 (10%) provided preference-discordant treatment (i.e., they intubated the patient). Physicians who intubated the patient were more likely to emphasize the reversible and emergent nature of the patient situation (z = -2.111, P = 0.035), their own comfort (z = -2.764, P = 0.006), and rarely focused on explicit patient preferences (z = 2.380, P = 0.017). LIMITATIONS: Post-decisional interviewing with audio/video prompting may induce hindsight bias. The expert model has not yet been validated and may not be exhaustive. The small sample size limits generalizability and power.
CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based physicians providing preference-discordant used a different mental model for decision making for a critically and terminally ill simulated case. These differences may offer targets for future interventions to promote preference-concordant care for seriously ill patients.