| Literature DB >> 33234133 |
Joshua Tze Yin Kuek1,2, Lisa Xin Ling Ngiam1,2, Nur Haidah Ahmad Kamal1,2, Jeng Long Chia1,2, Natalie Pei Xin Chan1,2, Ahmad Bin Hanifah Marican Abdurrahman1,2, Chong Yao Ho1,2, Lorraine Hui En Tan1,2, Jun Leng Goh1,2, Michelle Shi Qing Khoo1,2, Yun Ting Ong1,2, Min Chiam3, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin4, Stephen Mason5, Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna6,7,8,9,10,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supporting physicians in Intensive Care Units (ICU)s as they face dying patients at unprecedented levels due to the COVID-19 pandemic is critical. Amidst a dearth of such data and guided by evidence that nurses in ICUs experience personal, professional and existential issues in similar conditions, a systematic scoping review (SSR) is proposed to evaluate prevailing accounts of physicians facing dying patients in ICUs through the lens of Personhood. Such data would enhance understanding and guide the provision of better support for ICU physicians.Entities:
Keywords: Death and dying; Intensive care unit (ICU); Personhood; Physicians; Resilience; Ring theory of personhood (RToP)
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33234133 PMCID: PMC7685911 DOI: 10.1186/s13010-020-00096-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Philos Ethics Humanit Med ISSN: 1747-5341 Impact factor: 2.464
Fig. 1The SEBA Approach
PICOS, inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria applied to literature search
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | |
|---|---|---|
| Population | • Physicians | • Main focus on other health professionals such as: |
| ° Nurses | ||
| ° Allied health workers | ||
| ° Healthcare support staff | ||
| • Main focus on | ||
| • Students from health professions such as: | ||
| ° Medical students | ||
| ° Nursing students | ||
| ° Allied health students | ||
| Intervention / Exposure | • Being involved in the care of dying patients in the adult ICU | • No involvement in care of dying patients |
| ° No clearly defined patient care experience (e.g. study just explores attitudes to death/ palliative care) | ||
| ° Patient population not dying patients (incl. “geriatrics”, patients without specification that they are dying) | ||
| ° Physician assisted suicide/ medical assistance in death/ suicide | ||
| • Personal experience of death of family/ friend | ||
| • Non-adult ICUs such as: | ||
| ° Paediatric ICUs | ||
| ° Neonatal ICUs | ||
| Comparison | ||
| Outcome measures | • Impact on doctors ° Emotional ° Psychological ° Behavioural ° Physical | |
| Study design | • English language • Time of publication between 1990 and 2019 • No restriction on study design (qualitative, quantitative, mixed) • No restriction on geographical location of study or publication | • Grey Literature, electronic and print information not controlled by commercial publishing • Narrative literature reviews without methodology • Case reports and series, commentaries, editorials, and perspectives • Non-English publications without English translation • Unable to retrieve full article |
Fig. 2PRISMA Flow Chart
Summary of Thematic Analysis and Direct Content Analysis
| Themes and examples | Categories and Example |
|---|---|
| 1. Internal conflict | 1. Confrontation with own mortality |
| 2. Management of own expectations | 2. Conception of a good death impacting end-of-life care |
| 3. Confrontation with own mortality | 3. One has a right to die |
| 4. Apprehension/Distress | |
| 5. Fear due to unintentional transference to own family members | |
| 6. Satisfaction in providing end-of-life care | 1. Impact ability to make decisions |
| 1. Doubt | 1. Loss of ability to communicate and relate to patients |
| 2. Perception of emotional involvement | 2. Improvement in communication skills |
| 3. Professional responsibility | |
| 4. Death of a patient perceived to be a personal failure | 1. Emotional detachment |
| 5. Death of a patient not perceived to be a personal failure | 2. Emotion connection |
| 6. Intervention as prolonging suffering for patients | |
| 7. Intervention as prolonging suffering for patient’s family | 1. Lack of knowledge about end-of-life |
| 8. Withdrawal of treatment as life-shortening | 2. Inadequate opportunities for end-of-life care training |
| 9. Decision between active treatment or palliative intention | 3. Doubt and lack of confidence in clinical skills |
| 10. Perception that nurses do not grasp the complexity of end-of-life decision making | 4. Testing of practical skills such as treatment withdrawal techniques |
| 11. Motivated to improve communication skills | 5. Acquisition of new skills with experience |
| 12. Perception of intensive care unit as not conducive for palliative care discussions | |
| 1. Impaired ability to make decisions | 1. Dilemmas about the balancing of opposing values |
| 2. Impaired ability to communicate | 2. Personal beliefs reflected in end-of-life practices and communication |
| 3. Emotional detachment | |
| 4. Difficulty and discomfort when broaching topic of death to patients | 1. Differences in ethical opinion surrounding treatment withholding and withdrawal |
| 5. Attempts to avoid discussion of death in general | 2. Futile treatment |
| 6. Fear of litigation leading to defensive practice | 3. Lack of advanced directives and families’ aggressive care requests causing moral distress |
| 7. Adherence to decisions despite potential legal kickback | |
| 8. Personal, patient, institutional and societal factors affecting decision making | 1. Influenced end-of-life discussion and decision making |
| 9. Poor translation of spiritual ideas to goals of care | 2. Did not influence end-of-life practices |
| 1. Perceived duty to prolong life causing moral distress | |
| 1. Fear due to unintentional transference to own family members | 2. Uncertainty about role in end-of-life discussions resulting in no/late end-of-life discussion |
| 3. Paternalistic approach to decisionmaking | |
| 4. Satisfaction upon reconciling dual role of saving lives and managing death well | |
| 1. Challenges during end-of-life communication | |
| 2. Managing expectations of patients | |
| 3. Inspiring interactions with patients | 1. Fear due to unintentional transference to own family members |
| 1. Experiencing conflict with patient’s family | |
| 2. Effects of conflict on the relationship | 1. Availability of resources in different countries influencing end-of-life care |
| 3. Family’s concern for patient’s possible pain and distress | |
| 4. Managing expectations of patient’s family | 1. Physician’s end-of-life care attitudes, behaviors and decisions privy to cultural norms |
| 5. Family’s distress after end-of-life care discussion | 2. Death and dying perceived as a “taboo” topic in certain cultures |
| 6. Empowering interactions with patient’s family | 3. Need for end-of-life care to be sensitive to different cultures encountered |
| 7. Factors affecting communication | 4. Workplace culture impacting attitudes and practices |
| 8. Creation of soft landing when informing patient’s family about death | |
| 9. Perception of intensive care unit as not conducive for palliative care discussions | 1. Societal expectations promoting survival and death prevention leading to negative perception of treatment withdrawal as the taking of a patient’s life, affecting physician’s end-of-life decision making |
| 1. Conflict between physician and intensive care unit nurses | 1. Fear of litigation leading to defensive practice |
| 2. Perception that nurses do not grasp the complexity of end-of-life decision making | 2. Adherence to decisions despite potential legal kickback |
| 3. Receiving support from other intensive care unit physicians in managing end-of-life decisions | 3. Unclear laws surrounding end-of-life practices breeding legal uncertainty |
| 1. Challenges with interactions | 1. Conflict relating to end-of-life decisions with patient’s family and other healthcare professionals |
| 2. Lack of understanding of one another’s role | 2. Positive professional relationships |
| 1. Professional expectation that doctors should not cause death or harm to patients | |
| 1. Societal culture impacting decision making | 2. Responsibility of treatment withdrawal decision going against physician’s perceived professional standards |
| 2. Stigma associated with death or talking about death | |
| 1. Shapes the way doctors view death | |
| 1. Suitability for palliative care teaching | |
| 2. Intensive care unit as an inappropriate place to die | |
| 1. Uncertainty with regards to legal implication of end-of-life practice | |
| 1. Effective communication to strengthen decision making position | |
| 2. Gaining confidence through experience and with end-of-life discussions | |
| 3. Taking breaks from the intensive care unit or practicing on other sites | |
| 1. Collaboration with patients to reduce moral burden of decision making | |
| 1. Creation of soft landing when informing patient’s family about death | |
| 2. Collaboration with patient’s family to reduce moral burden of decision making | |
| 1. Conflict management interventions | |
| 2. Emotional and experiential sharing of caring for dying patients | |
| 3. Collaboration with interdisciplinary team members |
Fig. 3Krishna and Alsuwaigh (2015)‘s Ring Theory of Personhood
Combined Categories/ Themes
| Subcategory | Elaborations |
|---|---|
| 1. Perception of life and death | a) Confrontation with own mortality |
| b) Conception of a good death impacting end-of-life care | |
| c) Death of patient perceived to be a personal failure | |
| d) Death of patient not perceived to be a personal failure | |
| e) Conflict about prolonging life as it prolonged suffering | |
| f) One has a right to die | |
| 1. Ability to make sense of things | |
| a) Personal factors | |
| b) Patient factors | |
| c) Institutional factors | |
| d) Societal culture | |
| e) Doubt in end-of-life decision making | |
| f) Doubt about assessment of patient’s prognosis | |
| g) Doubt due to uncertainties in patient’s trajectories | |
| h) Internal conflict when balancing care goals | |
| i) Internal conflict when managing own expectations | |
| j) Dilemmas about active treatment versus palliative intention | |
| 2. Ability to communicate and relate | a) Loss of ability to communicate and relate to patients |
| b) Poor communication skills | |
| c) Difficulty and discomfort when broaching topic of death to patients | |
| d) Attempts to avoid discussion of death in general | |
| e) Improvement in communication skills | |
| f) Confidence in ability to navigate difficult conversations | |
| g) Motivated to further improve communication skills | |
| 3. Ability to express feelings | a) Emotional detachment |
| b) Emotions perceived as hinderance to job | |
| c) From end-of-life care | |
| d) From communication with family | |
| e) From belief that futile treatment prolonged dying process | |
| f) From possibility of litigation | |
| g) Fear due to unintentional transference to own family | |
| h) Emotional involvement being considered as valuable | |
| i) Satisfaction in involvement in patient’s end-of-life care | |
| 4. Acquired ability | a) Lacking knowledge about end-of-life |
| b) Inadequate opportunities for end-of-life care training | |
| c) Doubt and lack of confidence in clinical skills | |
| d) Testing of practical skills such as treatment withdrawal techniques | |
| e) End-of-life decision making differing with years of experience | |
| f) Acquisition of new skills with experience | |
| g) Adequate end-of-life care training | |
| 5. Beliefs | |
| a) Conflicting beliefs resulting in distress | |
| b) Dilemmas about the balancing of opposing values | |
| c) Personal beliefs reflected in end-of-life practices and communication | |
| d) Differences in ethical opinion surrounding treatment withholding and withdrawal | |
| e) Futile treatment | |
| f) Lack of advanced directives and families’ aggressive care requests causing moral distress | |
| g) Influenced end-of-life discussion and decision making | |
| h) Did not influence end-of-life practices | |
| 6. Perceived Role as a doctor | a) To care for dying patients |
| b) Perceived duty to prolong life causing moral distress | |
| c) Death of patient perceived to be a professional failure | |
| d) Death of patient not perceived to be a professional failure | |
| e) Uncertainty about role in end-of-life discussions resulting in no/late end-of-life discussion | |
| f) Paternalistic approach to decision making | |
| g) Perceived professional duty to collaborate and care for needs of patient’s family | |
| h) Professional satisfaction from caring for dying patients | |
| i) Satisfaction upon reconciling dual role of saving lives and managing death well | |
| j) Emotions perceived as hinderance to role as doctor | |
| 1. Family | a) Fear due to unintentional transference to physician’s own family members |
| 1. Physical environment | a) Availability of resources in different countries influencing end-of-life care |
| b) Intensive care unit environment as not conducive for end-of-life discussions | |
| c) Lack of privacy | |
| d) Focus of care not allowing for palliative care | |
| e) Not suitable | |
| f) Suitable | |
| 2. Cultural norms | a) Physician’s end-of-life care attitudes, behaviors and decisions privy to cultural norms |
| b) Death and dying perceived as a “taboo” topic in certain cultures | |
| c) Need for end-of-life care to be sensitive to different cultures encountered | |
| 3. Workplace cultural norms | a) Influencing views on death, end-of-life care attitudes, behavior and decision making |
| 4. Societal expectations | a) Societal expectations promoting survival and death prevention |
| b) Perception of treatment withdrawal as taking the life of one’s patient affecting physician’s end-of-life decision making | |
| 5. Legal standard | a) Fear of legal challenge affecting end-of-life care leading to defensive practice |
| b) Unclear laws surrounding end-of-life practices breeding legal uncertainty | |
| c) Adherence to decisions despite perceived potential legal kickback | |
| 6. Professional Relationships | |
| a) Challenges faced during end-of-life communication | |
| b) Managing expectations of patients | |
| c) Inspiring interactions with patients | |
| d) Conflict between physician and patient’s family | |
| e) Effects of conflict on relationship | |
| f) Family members concerned for patient’s possible pain and distress | |
| g) Managing expectations of patient’s family members | |
| h) Family’s distress after end-of-life care discussion | |
| i) Empowering interactions with patient’s family members | |
| j) Factors affecting communication with family members | |
| k) Creation of soft landing when informing family about death | |
| l) Perception of intensive care unit as not conducive for palliative care discussions | |
| m) Support from other intensive care unit physicians to help manage end-of-life decisions | |
| n) Challenges with interaction | |
| o) Lack of understanding of one another’s role | |
| 7. Professional Standards | a) Professional expectation for doctors to not cause death or harm to patients |
| b) Responsibility to decide on withdrawal of treatment went against physician’s perceived professional standards | |
| 1. Interpretation of duty of the physician | a) Professional expectation that doctors should not cause death or harm to patients b) Responsibility of treatment withdrawal decision going against physician’s perceived professional standards c) Physician’s end-of-life care attitudes, behaviors and decisions d) Need for end-of-life care to be sensitive to different cultured encountered |
| 2.Behavior of the physician | a) Doubts in self, conflicts in decision making b) Emotional and psychological overlay c) Internal conflict between beliefs and duties |
| 3.Behavior of others | e) Conflict with intensive care unit nurses f) Challenges with interactions with other professionals g) Perception that nurses do not grasp the complexity of end-of-life decision making |
| 4.Professional Standards | h) Conflict between respect for cultural norms and general practice i) Conflict between team members on how to interpret way to proceed in grey situations |
| 1. Personal strategies | a) Effective communication to strengthen decision making position b) Gaining confidence through experience c) Gaining confidence with end-of-life discussions d) Taking breaks from the intensive care unit or practicing on other sites |
| 2. Strategies with patients | a) Collaboration with patient to reduce moral burden of decision making |
| 3. Strategies with patient’s family | a) Creation of soft landing when informing patient’s family about death b) Collaboration with patient’s family to reduce moral burden of decision making |
| 4. Strategies with colleagues | a) Conflict management interventions b) Emotional and experiential sharing of caring for dying patients c) Collaborations with interdisciplinary team members |
Fig. 4Resilience and Concession
Fig. 5Cylinder Model
Fig. 6The Sphere Model