Search

On September 1, 2023, Texas made important revisions to it its decades-old statute granting legal safe harbor immunity to physicians who withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment over the objection of critically ill patients' surrogate decision-makers. However, lawmakers left untouched glaring flaws in a key safeguard for patients-the transfer option. The transfer option is ethically important because, when no hospital is willing to accept the patient in transfer, that fact is taken as strong evidence that the surrogates' treatment requests fall outside accepted medical practice. But there are serious shortcomings in how the transfer option is carried out in Texas and many other states, which undermines the ethical usefulness of the process. We identify these shortcomings and recommend revisions to state statutes and professional guidelines to overcome them., (© 2024 The Hastings Center.)

Background: Transfer of severely injured patients to trauma centers, either directly from the field or after evaluation at non-trauma centers, reduces preventable morbidity and mortality. Failure to transfer these patients appropriately (i.e., under-triage) remains common, and occurs in part because physicians at non-trauma centers make diagnostic errors when evaluating the severity of patients' injuries. We developed Night Shift, a theory-based adventure video game, to recalibrate physician heuristics (intuitive judgments) in trauma triage and established its efficacy in the laboratory. We plan a type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial to determine whether the game changes physician triage decisions in real-life and hypothesize that it will reduce the proportion of patients under-triaged., Methods: We will recruit 800 physicians who work in the emergency departments (EDs) of non-trauma centers in the US and will randomize them to the game (intervention) or to usual education and training (control). We will ask those in the intervention group to play Night Shift for 2 h within 2 weeks of enrollment and again for 20 min at quarterly intervals. Those in the control group will receive only usual education (i.e., nothing supplemental). We will then assess physicians' triage practices for older, severely injured adults in the 1-year following enrollment, using Medicare claims, and will compare under-triage (primary outcome), 30-day mortality and re-admissions, functional independence, and over-triage between the two groups. We will evaluate contextual factors influencing reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance with interviews of a subset of trial participants (n = 20) and of other key decision makers (e.g., patients, first responders, administrators [n = 100])., Discussion: The results of the trial will inform future efforts to improve the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in trauma triage and will provide deeper understanding of effective strategies to reduce diagnostic errors during time-sensitive decision making., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT06063434 . Registered 26 September 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Although trust is central to successful physician-family relationships in ICUs, little is known about how to promote surrogates' trust of ICU physicians in this setting., Research Question: Does the conduct of family conferences and physicians' use of shared decision-making (SDM) within family conferences impact surrogates' trust in the physician?, Study Design and Methods: A mixed-methods secondary analysis was done of a multicenter prospective cohort study of 369 surrogate decision-makers of 204 decisionally incapacitated patients at high risk of death or severe functional impairment within 13 ICUs at six US medical centers between 2008 and 2012. Surrogates completed the Abbreviated Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale (range, 5-25) before and after an audio-recorded family conference conducted within 5 days of ICU admission. We qualitatively coded transcribed conferences to determine physicians' use of five SDM behaviors: discussing surrogate's role, explaining medical condition and prognosis, providing emotional support, assessing understanding, and eliciting patient's values and preferences. Using multivariable linear regression with adjustment for clustering, we assessed whether surrogates' trust in the physician increased after the family meeting; we also examined whether the number of SDM behaviors used by physicians during the family meeting impacted trust scores., Results: In adjusted models, conduct of a family meeting was associated with increased trust (average change, pre- to post family meeting: 0.91 point [95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P < .01]). Every additional element of SDM used during the family meeting, including discussing surrogate's role, providing emotional support, assessing understanding, and eliciting patient's values and preferences, was associated with a 0.37-point increase in trust (95% CI, 0.08-0.67; P = .01). If all four elements were used, trust increased by 1.48 points. Explaining medical condition or prognosis was observed in nearly every conference (98.5%) and was excluded from the final model., Interpretation: The conduct of family meetings and physicians' use of SDM behaviors during meetings were both associated with increases in surrogates' trust in the treating physician., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Elucidate how physicians formulate a neurological prognosis after cardiac arrest and compare differences between experts and general providers., Methods: We performed semi-structured interviews with experts in post-arrest care and general physicians. We created an initial model and interview guide based on professional society guidelines. Two authors independently coded interviews based on this initial model, then identified new topics not included in it. To describe individual physicians' cognitive approach to prognostication, we created a graphical representation. We summarized these individual "mental models" into a single overall model, as well as two models stratified by expertise., Results: We performed 36 interviews (17 experts and 19 generalists), most of whom practice in Europe (23) or North America (12). Participants described their approach to prognosis formulation as complex and iterative, with sequential and repeated data acquisition, interpretation, and prognosis formulation. Eventually, this cycle results in a final prognosis and treatment recommendation. Commonly mentioned factors were diagnostic test performance, time from arrest, patient characteristics. Participants also discussed factors rarely discussed in prognostication research including physician and hospital characteristics. We found no substantial differences between experts and general physicians., Conclusion: Physicians' cognitive approach to neurologic prognostication is complex and influenced by many factors, including some rarely considered in current research. Understanding these processes better could inform interventions designed to aid physicians in prognostication., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although proactive interprofessional family meetings are widely recommended as a best practice for patient- and family-centered care in intensive care units (ICUs), adherence to this recommendation is low., Objectives: To enhance understanding of practices, barriers, and facilitators related to the conduct of family meetings from the perspective of ICU clinicians and to elicit clinicians' ideas and opinions about strategies to achieve proactive interprofessional family meetings., Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with ICU clinicians who were purposively selected from among a national sample. Constant comparative analysis was used to generate a matrix of themes; enrollment ceased when no new ideas emerged., Results: Interviews were conducted with 14 participants (10 nurses, 3 physicians, and 1 care manager). Rather than having a protocol for proactive family meetings, participants primarily held family meetings when physicians thought that it was time to discuss a transition to comfort-focused care. Other barriers included clinicians' discomfort with end-of-life conversations, physicians' time constraints, and nurses' competing clinical responsibilities. Facilitators included physicians' skill and comfort with difficult conversations, advocacy for family meetings from care managers/ social workers, and having full-time intensivists. Participants offered/endorsed multiple intervention ideas, including scheduling preemptively, monitoring unit performance, and adding discussion of a family meeting to daily rounds., Conclusions: A key barrier to proactive family meetings is the mindset that family meetings need occur only when a clinical decision must be made, rather than proactively to support and engage families. Clinicians suggested ways to make proactive family meetings routine., (©2022 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Objectives: Optimistic expectations about prognosis by surrogate decision-makers in ICUs are common, but there are few data about the causes and clinical consequences. Our objective was to determine the causes of optimistic expectations about prognosis among surrogates and whether it is associated with more use of life support at the end of life., Design: Prospective, multicenter cohort study from 2009 to 2012., Setting: Twelve ICUs from multiple regions of the United States., Subjects: The surrogates and physicians of 275 incapacitated ICU patients at high risk of death., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Surrogates and physicians completed a validated instrument assessing their prognostic expectations for hospital survival. We determined the proportion of surrogates with optimistic expectations, defined as a prognostic estimate that was at least 20% more optimistic than the physician's, then determined how frequently this arose from surrogates miscomprehending the physicians' prognosis versus holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. We used multivariable regression to examine whether optimistic expectations were associated with length of stay, stratified by survival status, and time to withdrawal of life support among nonsurvivors. Overall, 45% of surrogates (95% CI, 38-51%) held optimistic expectations about prognosis, which arose from a combination of misunderstanding the physician's prognostic expectations and from holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. Optimistic expectations by surrogates were associated with significantly longer duration of ICU treatment among nonsurvivors before death (β coefficient = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; p = 0.027), corresponding to a 56% longer ICU stay. This difference was associated with a significantly longer time to withdrawal of life support among dying patients whose surrogates had optimistic prognostic expectations compared with those who did not (β coefficient = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.16-1.07; p = 0.009)., Conclusions: The prevalent optimism about prognosis among surrogates in ICUs arises both from surrogates' miscomprehension of physicians' prognostications and from surrogates holding more hopeful beliefs. This optimism is associated with longer duration of life support at the end of life.

Importance: Misperceptions about prognosis by individuals making decisions for incapacitated critically ill patients (surrogates) are common and often attributed to poor comprehension of medical information., Objective: To determine the prevalence of and factors related to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis in intensive care units (ICUs)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Mixed-methods study comprising quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews conducted in 4 ICUs at a major US medical center involving surrogate decision makers and physicians caring for patients at high risk of death from January 4, 2005, to July 10, 2009., Main Outcomes and Measures: Discordance about prognosis, defined as a difference between a physician's and a surrogate's prognostic estimates of at least 20%; misunderstandings by surrogates (defined as any difference between a physician's prognostic estimate and a surrogate's best guess of that estimate); differences in belief (any difference between a surrogate's actual estimate and their best guess of the physician's estimate)., Results: Two hundred twenty-nine surrogate decision makers (median age, 47 [interquartile range {IQR}, 35-56] years; 68% women) and 99 physicians were involved in the care of 174 critically ill patients (median age, 60 [IQR, 47-74] years; 44% women). Physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis occurred in 122 of 229 instances (53%; 95% CI, 46.8%-59.7%). In 65 instances (28%), discordance was related to both misunderstandings by surrogates and differences in belief about the patient's prognosis; 38 (17%) were related to misunderstandings by surrogates only; 7 (3%) were related to differences in belief only; and data were missing for 12. Seventy-five patients (43%) died. Surrogates' prognostic estimates were much more accurate than chance alone, but physicians' prognostic estimates were statistically significantly more accurate than surrogates' (C statistic, 0.83 vs 0.74; absolute difference, 0.094; 95% CI, 0.024-0.163; P = .008). Among 71 surrogates interviewed who had beliefs about the prognosis that were more optimistic than that of the physician, the most common reasons for optimism were a need to maintain hope to benefit the patient (n = 34), a belief that the patient had unique strengths unknown to the physician (n = 24), and religious belief (n = 19)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients, discordant expectations about prognosis were common between patients' physicians and surrogate decision makers and were related to misunderstandings by surrogates about physicians' assessments of patients' prognoses and differences in beliefs about patients' prognoses.

Objective: Although misperceptions about prognosis by surrogates in ICUs are common and influence treatment decisions, there is no validated, practical way to measure the effectiveness of prognostic communication. Surrogates' subjective ratings of quality of communication have been used in other domains as markers of effectiveness of communication. We sought to determine whether surrogates' subjective ratings of the quality of prognostic communication predict accurate expectation about prognosis by surrogates., Design: We performed a cross-sectional cohort study. Surrogates rated the quality of prognostic communication by survey. Physicians and surrogates gave their percentage estimate of patient survival on ICU day 3 on a 0-100 probability scale. We defined discordance about prognosis as a difference in the physician's and surrogate's estimates of greater than or equal to ±20%. We used multilevel logistic regression modeling to account for clustering under physicians and patients and adjust for confounders., Setting: Medical-surgical, trauma, cardiac, and neurologic ICUs of five U.S. academic medical centers located in California, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Carolina, and Massachusetts., Patients: Two hundred seventy-five patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome at high risk of death or severe functional impairment, their 546 surrogate decision makers, and their 150 physicians., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: There was no predictive utility of surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication about prognosis to identify inaccurate expectations about prognosis (odds ratio, 1.04 ± 0.07; p = 0.54). Surrogates' subjective ratings of the quality of communication about prognosis were high, as assessed with a variety of questions. Discordant prognostic estimates were present in 63.5% (95% CI, 59.0-67.9) of physician-surrogate pairs., Conclusions: Although most surrogates rate the quality of prognostic communication high, inaccurate expectations about prognosis are common among surrogates. Surrogates' ratings of the quality of prognostic communication do not reliably predict an accurate expectation about prognosis.

Purpose: Recent research and professional guidelines support expanded use of outpatient subspecialty palliative care in oncology, but provider referral practices vary widely. We sought to explore oncologist factors that influence referrals to outpatient palliative care., Methods: Multisite, qualitative interview study at three academic cancer centers in the United States with well-established palliative care clinics. Seventy-four medical oncologists participated in semistructured interviews between February and October 2012. The interview guide asked about experiences and decision making regarding outpatient palliative care use. A multidisciplinary team analyzed interview transcripts using constant comparative methods to inductively develop and refine themes related to palliative care referral decisions., Results: We identified three main oncologist barriers to subspecialty palliative care referrals at sites with comprehensive palliative care clinics: persistent conceptions of palliative care as an alternative philosophy of care incompatible with cancer therapy, a predominant belief that providing palliative care is an integral part of the oncologist's role, and a lack of knowledge about locally available services. Participants described their views of subspecialty palliative care as evolving in response to increasing availability of services and positive referral experiences, but emphasized that views of palliative care as valuable in addition to standard oncology care were not universally shared by oncologists., Conclusions: Improving provision of palliative care in oncology will likely require efforts beyond increasing service availability. Raising awareness of ways in which subspecialty palliative care complements standard oncology care and developing ways for oncologists and palliative care physicians to collaborate and integrate their respective skills may help.

Objective: Most studies have assessed conflict between clinicians and surrogate decision makers in ICUs from only clinicians' perspectives. It is unknown if surrogates' perceptions differ from clinicians'. We sought to determine the degree of agreement between physicians and surrogates about conflict and to identify predictors of physician-surrogate conflict., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Four ICUs of two hospitals in San Francisco, California., Patients: Two hundred and thirty surrogate decision makers and 100 physicians of 175 critically ill patients., Measurements: Questionnaires addressing participants' perceptions of whether there was physician-surrogate conflict, as well as attitudes and preferences about clinician-surrogate communication; κ scores to quantify physician-surrogate concordance about the presence of conflict; and hierarchical multivariate modeling to determine predictors of conflict., Main Results: Either the physician or surrogate identified conflict in 63% of cases. Physicians were less likely to perceive conflict than surrogates (27.8% vs 42.3%; p = 0.007). Agreement between physicians and surrogates about conflict was poor (κ = 0.14). Multivariable analysis with surrogate-assessed conflict as the outcome revealed that higher levels of surrogates' satisfaction with physicians' bedside manner were associated with lower odds of conflict (odds ratio, 0.75 per 1 point increase in satisfaction; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96). Multivariable analysis with physician-assessed conflict as the outcome revealed that the surrogate having felt discriminated against in the healthcare setting was associated with higher odds of conflict (odds ratio, 17.5; 95% CI, 1.6-190.1) while surrogates' satisfaction with physicians' bedside manner was associated with lower odds of conflict (0-10 scale; odds ratio, 0.76 per 1 point increase; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99)., Conclusions: Conflict between physicians and surrogates is common in ICUs. There is little agreement between physicians and surrogates about whether physician-surrogate conflict has occurred. Further work is needed to develop reliable and valid methods to assess conflict. In the interim, future studies should assess conflict from the perspective of both clinicians and surrogates.

Objectives: There is substantial variation in use of life sustaining technologies in patients near the end of life but little is known about variation in physicians' initial ICU admission and intubation decision making processes. Our objective is to describe variation in hospital-based physicians' communication behaviors and decision-making roles for ICU admission and intubation decisions for an acutely unstable critically and terminally ill patient., Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of transcribed simulation encounters from a multi-center observational study of physician decision making. The simulation depicted a 78-year-old man with metastatic gastric cancer and life threatening hypoxia. He has stable underlying preferences against ICU admission and intubation that he or his wife will report if asked. We coded encounters for communication behaviors (providing medical information, eliciting preferences/values, engaging the patient/surrogate in deliberation, and providing treatment recommendations) and used a previously-developed framework to classify subject physicians into four -mutually-exclusive decision-making roles: informative (providing medical information only), facilitative (information + eliciting preferences/values + guiding surrogate to apply preferences/values), collaborative (information + eliciting + guiding + making a recommendation) and directive (making an independent treatment decision)., Setting: Simulation centers at 3 US academic medical centers., Subjects: Twenty-four emergency physicians, 37 hospitalists, and 37 intensivists., Measurements and Main Results: Subject physicians average 12.4 years (SD 9.0) since graduation from medical school. Of 98 physicians (39%), 38 physicians sent the patient to the ICU, and 9 of 98 (9%) ultimately decided to intubate. Most (93 of 98 [95%]) provided at least some medical information, but few explained the short-term prognosis with (26 of 98 [27%]) or without intubation (37 of 98 [38%]). Many (80 of 98 [82%]) elicited the patient's intubation preferences, but few (35 of 98 [36%]) explored the patient's broader values. Based on coded behaviors, we categorized 1 of 98 (1%) as informative, 48 of 98 (49%) as facilitative, 36 of 98 (37%) as collaborative, and 12 of 98 (12%) as directive; 1 of 98 (1%) could not be placed into a category. No observed physician characteristics predicted decision-making role., Conclusions: The majority of the physicians played a facilitative or collaborative role, although a greater proportion assumed a directive role in this time-pressured scenario than has been documented in nontime-pressured ICU family meetings, suggesting that physicians' roles may be context dependent.

Purpose: For critically ill patients at high risk of death, reasonable treatment options include attempts at life prolongation and treatment focused on comfort. Little is known about whether and how physicians present the option of comfort care to surrogates. This study assessed how comfort care is presented to surrogates and whether physicians' beliefs are associated with whether comfort care is presented as an option., Methods: Mixed-methods study of 72 audio-recorded family conferences about treatment decisions in five ICUs at two hospitals in San Francisco, California. One hundred sixty-nine family members and 54 physicians participated. Patients were at high risk of death or severe functional impairment. Transcripts of audio-recorded conferences were coded to identify whether physicians offered comfort care as an alternative to life-sustaining treatment and to characterize the stated risks and benefits. Physicians completed a questionnaire indicating the strength of their belief that life support should be foregone., Results: The inpatient mortality rate was 72 %. Using a broad definition of comfort-oriented treatment, this option was presented in 56 % (95 % CI, 44-67 %) of conferences. In clustered multivariate models, the only independent predictor of offering comfort care as an option was the strength of the physician's belief that life support should be foregone [OR 1.38 (1.14-1.66), p = 0.01]., Conclusions: Clinicians did not explicitly inform surrogates about the option of comfort-oriented treatment in roughly half of clinician-family meetings. Physicians who more strongly believe that the appropriate goal of care is life prolongation are less likely to inform surrogates about the option of comfort care.

Although the need to ration health care is increasingly accepted, the need for bedside physicians to participate in it is not. There are three common perspectives on physicians' roles in rationing: one is that bedside physicians should advocate fully for their patients and eschew rationing; another is that some rationing is permissible but should be imposed from outside the patient-physician relationship; the third is that bedside physicians should simultaneously advocate for their individual patients and make bedside rationing decisions that incorporate societal interests. The first two conceptualizations are at odds with empirical evidence that physicians do ration at the bedside and the idea that doing so may be a necessary part of efforts to control costs, whereas the third raises difficult ethical questions about the extent of physicians' obligations to advocate maximally for their individual patients., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Background: Although physicians sometimes use the futility rationale to limit the use of life-sustaining treatments, little is known about how surrogate decision makers view this rationale. We sought to determine the attitudes of surrogates of patients who are critically ill toward whether physicians can predict futility and whether these attitudes predict surrogates' willingness to discontinue life support when faced with predictions of futility., Methods: This multicenter, mixed qualitative and quantitative study took place at three hospitals in California from 2006 to 2007. We conducted semistructured interviews with surrogate decision makers for 50 patients who were critically ill and incapacitated that addressed their beliefs about medical futility and inductively developed an organizing framework to describe these beliefs. We used a hypothetical scenario with a modified time-trade-off design to examine the relationship between a patient's prognosis and a surrogate's willingness to withdraw life support. We used a mixed-effects regression model to examine the association between surrogates' attitudes about futility and their willingness to limit life support in the face of a very poor prognosis. Validation methods included the use and integration of multiple data sources, multidisciplinary analysis, and member checking., Results: Sixty-four percent of surrogates (n = 32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 49 to 77%) expressed doubt about the accuracy of physicians' futility predictions, 32% of surrogates (n = 16; 95% CI, 20 to 47%) elected to continue life support with a < 1% survival estimate, and 18% of surrogates (n = 9; 95% CI, 9 to 31%) elected to continue treatment when the physician believed that the patient had no chance of survival. Surrogates with religious objections to the futility rationale (n = 18) were more likely to request continued life support (odds ratio, 4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 14.0; p = 0.03) than those with secular or experiential objections (n = 15; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.4; p = 0.90)., Conclusions: Doubt about physicians' ability to predict medical futility is common among surrogate decision makers. The nature of the doubt may have implications for responding to conflicts about futility in clinical practice.

Background: Although many physicians worry that openly discussing a poor prognosis will cause patients and families to lose hope, surrogate decision makers' perspectives on this topic are largely unknown., Objective: To determine surrogate decision makers' attitudes toward balancing hope and telling the truth when discussing prognosis., Design: Prospective, mixed-methods cohort study., Setting: 4 intensive care units at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center, San Francisco, California., Participants: 179 surrogate decision makers for incapacitated patients at high risk for death., Measurements: One-on-one, semistructured interviews with surrogates were conducted on the patients' 5th day of receiving mechanical ventilation. Constant comparative methods were used to inductively develop a framework to describe participants' responses. Validation methods included multidisciplinary analysis and member checking., Results: Overall, 93% (166 of 179) of surrogates felt that avoiding discussions about prognosis is an unacceptable way to maintain hope. The main explanatory theme was that timely discussion of prognosis is essential to allow family members to prepare emotionally and logistically for the possibility of a patient's death. Other themes that emerged included surrogates' belief that an accurate understanding of a patient's prognosis allows them to better support the patient and each other, a moral aversion to the idea of false hope, the perception that physicians have an obligation to discuss prognosis, and the notion that some surrogates look to physicians primarily for truth and seek hope elsewhere. A few surrogates (6 of 179) felt that physicians should withhold prognostic information because of a belief that discussing death could be emotionally damaging to the family or could negatively affect the patient's health., Limitation: The authors did not longitudinally assess whether early disclosure about prognosis predicts fewer adverse bereavement outcomes., Conclusion: Most surrogates of critically ill patients do not view withholding prognostic information as an acceptable way to maintain hope, largely because timely discussions about prognosis help families begin to prepare emotionally, existentially, and practically for the possibility that a patient will die.