Integrating Social Determinants of Health in Critical Care.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOHs) mediate outcomes of critical illness. Increasingly, professional organizations recommend screening for social risks. Yet, how clinicians should identify and then incorporate SDOHs into acute care practice is poorly defined. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do medical ICU clinicians currently operationalize SDOHs within patient care, given that SDOHs are known to mediate outcomes of critical illness? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using ethnographic methods, we observed clinical work rounds in three urban ICUs within a single academic health system to capture use of SDOHs during clinical care. Adults admitted to the medical ICU with respiratory failure were enrolled prospectively sequentially. Observers wrote field notes and narrative excerpts from rounding observations. We also reviewed electronic medical record documentation for up to 90 days after ICU admission. We then qualitatively coded and triangulated data using a constructivist grounded theory approach and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthy People SDOHs framework. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled and > 200 h of observation of clinical work rounds were included in the analysis. ICU clinicians infrequently integrated social structures of patients' lives into their discussions. Social structures were invoked most frequently when related to: (1) causes of acute respiratory failure, (2) decisions regarding life-sustaining therapies, and (3) transitions of care. Data about common SDOHs were not collected in any systematic way (eg, food and housing insecurity), and some SDOHs were discussed rarely or never (eg, access to education, discrimination, and incarceration). INTERPRETATION: We found that clinicians do not incorporate many areas of known SDOHs into ICU rounds. Improvements in integration of SDOHs should leverage the multidisciplinary team, identifying who is best suited to collect information on SDOHs during different time points in critical illness. Next steps include clinician-focused, patient-focused, and caregiver-focused assessments of feasibility and acceptability of an ICU-based SDOHs assessment.

Looking to "Level the Field": A Qualitative Study of How Clinicians Operationalize Social Determinants in Critical Care.

INTRODUCTION: Current critical care practice does not integrate social determinants of health (SDOH) in systematic or standardized ways. Routine assessment of SDOH in the intensive care unit (ICU) may improve clinical decision-making, patient- and family-centered outcomes, and clinician well-being. Given the appropriateness and feasibility of SDOH assessment in the ICU is unknown, we aimed to understand how ICU clinicians think about and use SDOH. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians focused on barriers to and facilitators of assessing SDOH during critical illness and perceptions on screening for SDOH in the ICU. We used chart-stimulated recall to assist clinicians in reflecting on how SDOH applied to and was used in patients' care. After deidentifying interviews, we analyzed transcripts guided by a thematic analysis approach using a combination of inductive and deductive coding, the latter framed within the Centers for Disease Control SDOH Healthy People framework. RESULTS: We completed interviews with 30 clinicians, in a variety of professional roles. The majority of clinicians self-identified as men (17, 56.7%) of White race (25, 83.3%). Clinicians contextualize their use of SDOH within three frames of reference: 1) their own identity and experiences; 2) their relationships and communication with patients and caregivers; and 3) immediate structures of care around ICU patients including clinician advocacy, care transitions, and readmission. Clinicians identified that discussing SDOH could allow them to recognize bias faced by their patients, elucidate drivers of critical illness, and navigate communication with patients caregivers. Clinicians worried about ICU-specific factors impeding the discussion of SDOH including time contraints and acuity, high stakes and emotions, and negative anticipatory emotions. DISCUSSION: Clinicians gather SDOH during critical illness both to understand their patients' stories and provide individualized care, which may lead to better clinician satisfaction and patient- and family-centered care outcomes. Educational and operational efforts to increase SDOH assessment and use in critical care should also gather and integrate the perspectives of patients and caregivers regarding the collection and use of SDOH in the ICU.

Ethical Issues in Implementation Science: A Qualitative Interview Study of Participating Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science presents ethical issues not well addressed by traditional research ethics frameworks. There is little empirical work examining how clinicians whose work is affected by implementation studies view these issues. Accordingly, we interviewed clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study seeking to improve patient handoffs to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with 32 clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study aiming to improve patient handoffs from the operating room to the ICU. We analyzed the interviews using an iterative coding process following a conventional content analysis approach. RESULTS: Clinicians' greatest concern about involvement was possible damage to interpersonal relations with more senior clinicians. They were divided about whether informed consent from clinicians was necessary but were satisfied with the study's approach of sending out mass communications about the study. They did not think opting out of the implementation portion of the study was feasible but saw this inability to opt out as unproblematic because they equated the study with routine quality improvement. Those clinicians who helped launch the study at their sites recounted several different ways of doing so beyond simply facilitating access. CONCLUSIONS: The risks that clinicians identified stemmed more from their general status as employees than their specific work as clinicians. Implementation researchers should be attuned to the ethical ramifications of involving employees of varying ranks. Implementation researchers using hybrid designs should also be sensitive to the possibility that practitioners affected by a study will equate it with quality improvement and overlook its research component. Finally, the interactions that go into facilitating an implementation study are more various than the "gatekeeping" typically discussed by research ethicists. More research is needed on the ethics of the myriad interactions that are involved in making implementation studies happen.

Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent: Talking with Surgical Patients.

For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as "informed consent." Yet the core framework-understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives-fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will "fix" the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called "better conversations." Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.

Language in Bioethics: Beyond the Representational View.

Though assumptions about language underlie all bioethical work, the field has rarely partaken of theories of language. This article encourages a more linguistically engaged bioethics. We describe the tacit conception of language that is frequently upheld in bioethics-what we call the representational view, which sees language essentially as a means of description. We examine how this view has routed the field's theories and interventions down certain paths. We present an alternative model of language-the pragmatic view-and explore how it expands and clarifies traditional bioethical concerns. To lend concreteness, we apply the pragmatic view to a pervasive concept in bioethics and adjacent fields: decision making. We suggest that problems of the decision-making approach to bioethical issues are grounded in adherence to the representational view. Drawing on empirical work in surgery and critical care, we show how the pragmatic view productively reframes bioethical questions about how medical treatments are pursued.

Determinants of Plasma Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Use by Primary Care Providers and Dementia Specialists.

BACKGROUND: The efficiencies of plasma Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers could facilitate early AD diagnosis. Unfortunately, limited knowledge exists about whether and how they would be used by clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare determinants of plasma AD biomarker use reported by primary care providers and dementia specialists. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews with clinicians organized using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory and analyzed using an iterative coding approach. PARTICIPANTS: The subjects were internal and family medicine, neurology, and geriatrics providers with varying degrees of expertise in dementia diagnosis and care. MAIN MEASURES: Factors influencing a clinician's decision to use or not use plasma AD biomarkers in clinical practice. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 30 clinicians (16 family or internal medicine providers, 8 geriatricians, and 6 neurologists). Fifteen were dementia specialists. Hesitance to use plasma AD biomarkers was due to perceived lack of effective treatments for AD, limited access to supports, and stigma. Plasma AD biomarkers would be more readily adopted by clinicians with dementia expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors will influence clinical use of plasma AD biomarkers. Some of them may inform the design of interventions to promote the effective and appropriate clinical translation of these tests.

Time-Limited Trials for Patients With Critical Illness: A Review of the Literature.

TOPIC IMPORTANCE: Since the 1990s, time-limited trials have been described as an approach to navigate uncertain benefits and limits of life-sustaining therapies in patients with critical illness. In this review, we aim to synthesize the evidence on time-limited trials in critical care, establish what is known, and highlight important knowledge gaps. REVIEW FINDINGS: We identified 18 empirical studies and 15 ethical analyses about time-limited trials in patients with critical illness. Observational studies suggest time-limited trials are part of current practice in ICUs in the United States, but their use varies according to unit and physician factors. Some ICU physicians are familiar with, endorse, and have participated in time-limited trials, and some older adults appear to favor time-limited trial strategies over indefinite life-sustaining therapy or care immediately focused on comfort. When time-limited trials are used, they are often implemented incompletely and challenged by systematic barriers (eg, continually rotating ICU staff). Predictive modeling studies support prevailing clinical wisdom that prognostic uncertainty decreases over time in the ICU for some patients. One study prospectively comparing usual ICU care with an intervention designed to support time-limited trials yielded promising preliminary results. Ethical analyses describe time-limited trials as a pragmatic approach within the longstanding discussion about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapies. SUMMARY: Time-limited trials are endorsed by physicians, align with the priorities of some older adults, and are part of current practice. Substantial efforts are needed to test their impact on patient-centered outcomes, improve their implementation, and maximize their potential benefit.

Caregiver Accounts of Lucid Episodes in Persons With Advanced Dementia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Paradoxical lucidity is defined as an instance of unexpected lucid behavior in a person who is assumed to be noncommunicative due to a progressive and pathophysiologic dementing process. To inform studies of the prevalence, characteristics, and impact of these behaviors, this interview study examined caregivers' experiences of witnessing paradoxical lucidity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were family caregivers of persons living with advanced dementia caused by a neurodegenerative disease producing significant impairments in communication. Semistructured interviews elicited the caregivers' experiences of plausible lucid episodes. Data analysis used a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Most caregivers reported at least 1 episode of lucidity. Episodes were typically brief. Most involved utterances, but nonverbal behaviors were also common. The mental capacities associated with these behaviors included recognition, awareness of surroundings, recognizing others' emotions, and goal-directed behavior. Most caregivers' reactions were positive. Episodes did not lead to changes in major medical decisions but instead to efforts to either modify or reinforce daily caregiving efforts. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Episodes of lucidity were common, a finding seen in other studies. If prevalence studies confirm this, the qualifier "paradoxical" should be eliminated. The caregivers' familiarity with the person living with dementia allowed them to attribute meaning to subtle behaviors that might not otherwise be detected or considered lucid. Clinicians who care for persons with advanced-stage dementia should routinely ask caregivers about episodes of lucid communication and their emotional reactions.

"A Raw Blessing" - Caregivers' Experiences Providing Care to Persons Living with Dementia in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers. While prior research has documented these effects, it has not delved into their specific causes or how they are modified by contextual variation in caregiving circumstances.

The Duality of "Goals of Care" Language: A Qualitative Focus Group Study With Frontline Clinicians.

CONTEXT: The phrase "goals of care" (GOC) is common in serious illness care, yet it lacks clarity and consistency. Understanding how GOC is used across healthcare contexts is an opportunity to identify and mitigate root causes of serious illness miscommunication. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize frontline palliative and critical care clinicians' understanding and use of the phrase GOC in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a secondary qualitative thematic analysis of focus group transcripts (n = 10), gathered as part of a parent study of care delivery for patients with respiratory failure. Participants (n = 59) were members of the palliative and critical care interprofessional teams at two academic medical centers. RESULTS: Clinicians primarily use GOC as a shorthand signal among team members to indicate a patient is nearing the end of life. This signal can also indicate conflict with patients and families when clinicians' expectations-typically an expected "transition" toward a different type of care-are not met. Clinicians distinguish their clinical use of GOC from an "ideal" meaning of the phrase, which is broader than end of life and focused on patients' values. Palliative care specialists encourage other clinicians to shift toward the "ideal" GOC concept in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Frontline palliative and critical care clinicians understand a duality in GOC, as an idealized concept and as an expeditious signal for clinical care. Our findings suggest ambiguous phrases like GOC persist because of unmet needs for better ways to discuss and address diverse and complex priorities for patients with serious illness.

Innovations in Surgical Communication-Provide Your Opinion, Don't Hide It.

This Viewpoint discusses why surgeons should reveal their initial impressions about surgery so that they can move forward in a space of deliberation to consider whether their inclination makes sense for the patient.

Innovations in Surgical Communication 2-Focus on the Goals of Surgery.

This Viewpoint discusses communicating goals of surgeries with patients.

Reconsidering the Language of Serious Illness.

This Viewpoint expresses how use of certain language complicates decision-making for critically ill patients, and it highlights alternative phrasing for effective communication.

Clinical reasoning in pragmatic trial randomization: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials, because they study widely used treatments in settings of routine practice, require intensive participation from clinicians who determine whether patients can be enrolled. Clinicians are often conflicted between their therapeutic obligation to patients and their willingness to enroll them in trials in which treatments are randomly determined and thus potentially suboptimal. Refusal to enroll eligible patients can hinder trial completion and damage generalizability. In order to help evaluate and mitigate clinician refusal, this qualitative study examined how clinicians reason about whether to randomize eligible patients. METHODS: We performed interviews with 29 anesthesiologists who participated in REGAIN, a multicenter pragmatic randomized trial comparing spinal and general anesthesia in hip fracture. Interviews included a chart-stimulated section in which physicians described their reasoning pertaining to specific eligible patients as well as a general semi-structured section about their views on clinical research. Guided by a constructivist grounded theory approach, we analyzed data via coding, synthesized thematic patterns using focused coding, and developed an explanation using abduction. RESULTS: Anesthesiologists perceived their main clinical function as preventing peri- and intraoperative complications. In some cases, they used prototype-based reasoning to determine whether patients with contraindications should be randomized; in others, they used probabilistic reasoning. These modes of reasoning involved different types of uncertainty. In contrast, anesthesiologists expressed confidence about anesthetic options when they accepted patients for randomization. Anesthesiologists saw themselves as having a fiduciary responsibility to patients and thus did not hesitate to communicate their inclinations, even when this complicated trial recruitment. Nevertheless, they voiced strong support for clinical research, stating that their involvement was mainly hindered by production pressure and workflow disruptions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that prominent ways of assessing clinician decisions about trial randomization are based on questionable assumptions about clinical reasoning. Close examination of routine clinical practice, attuned to the features of clinical reasoning we reveal here, will help both in evaluating clinicians' enrollment determinations in specific trials and in anticipating and responding to them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence After Hip Fracture (REGAIN). CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT02507505. Prospectively registered on July 24, 2015.

Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Surgeons are entrusted with providing patients with information necessary for deliberation about surgical intervention. Ideally, surgical consultations generate a shared understanding of the treatment experience and determine whether surgery aligns with a patient's overall health goals. In-depth assessment of communication patterns might reveal opportunities to better achieve these objectives. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of audio-recorded consultations between surgeons and patients considering high-risk surgery. For 43 surgeons, we randomly selected 4 transcripts each of consultations with patients aged ≥60 y with at least 1 comorbidity. We developed a coding taxonomy, based on principles of informed consent and shared decision making, to categorize surgeon speech. We grouped transcripts by treatment plan and recorded the treatment goal. We used box plots, Sankey diagrams, and flow diagrams to characterize communication patterns. RESULTS: We included 169 transcripts, of which 136 discussed an oncologic problem and 33 considered a vascular (including cardiac and neurovascular) problem. At the median, surgeons devoted an estimated 8 min (interquartile range 5-13 min) to content specifically about intervention including surgery. In 85.5% of conversations, more than 40% of surgeon speech was consumed by technical descriptions of the disease or treatment. "Fix-it" language was used in 91.7% of conversations. In 79.9% of conversations, no overall goal of treatment was established or only a desire to cure or control cancer was expressed. Most conversations (68.6%) began with an explanation of the disease, followed by explanation of the treatment in 53.3%, and then options in 16.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Explanation of disease and treatment dominate surgical consultations, with limited time spent on patient goals. Changing the focus of these conversations may better support patients' deliberation about the value of surgery.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335. HIGHLIGHTS: In decision-making conversations about high-risk surgical intervention, surgeons emphasize description of the patient's disease and potential treatment, and the use of "fix-it" language is common.Surgeons dedicated limited time to eliciting patient preferences and goals, and 79.9% of conversations resulted in no explicit goal of treatment.Current communication practices may be inadequate to support deliberation about the value of surgery for individual patients and their families.

Does Masked Interviewing Encourage Holistic Review in Residency Selection? A Mixed-Methods Study.

Problem: Medical educators increasingly champion holistic review. However, in U.S. residency selection, holistic review has been difficult to implement, hindered by a reliance on standardized academic criteria such as board scores. Masking faculty interviewers to applicants' academic files is a potential means of promoting holistic residency selection by increasing the interview's ability to make a discrete contribution to evaluation. However, little research has directly analyzed the effects of masking on how residency selection committees evaluate applicants. This mixed-methods study examined how masking interviews altered residency selection in an anesthesiology program at a large U.S. academic medical center. Intervention: During the 2019-2020 residency selection season in the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, we masked interviewers to the major academic components of candidates' application files (board scores, transcripts, letters) on approximately half of interview days. The intent of the masking intervention was to mitigate the tendency of interviewers to form predispositions about candidates based on standardized academic criteria and thereby allow the interview to make a more independent contribution to candidate evaluation. Context: Our examination of the masking intervention used a concurrent, partially mixed, equal-status mixed-methods design guided by a pragmatist approach. We audio-recorded selection committee meetings and qualitatively analyzed them to explore how masking affected the process of candidate evaluation. We also collected independent candidate ratings from interviewers and consensus committee ratings and statistically compared ratings of candidates interviewed on masked days to ratings from conventional days. Impact: In conventional committee meetings, interviewers focused on how to reconcile academic metrics and interviews, and their evaluations of interviews were framed according to predispositions about candidates formed through perusal of application files. In masked meetings, members instead spent considerable effort evaluating candidates' "fit" and whether they came off as tactful. Masked interviewers gave halting opinions of candidates and sometimes pushed for committee leaders to reveal academic information, leading to masking breaches. Higher USMLE Step 1 score and higher medical school ranking were statistically associated with more favorable consensus rating. We found no significant differences in rating outcomes between masked and conventional interview days. Lessons learned: Elimination of academic metrics during the residency interview phase does not straightforwardly promote holistic review. While critical reflection among medical educators about the fairness and utility of such metrics has been productive, research and intervention should focus on the more proximate topic of how programs apply academic and other criteria to evaluate applicants.

Thematic mapping of perioperative incident reporting data to relational coordination domains.

Communication failure is a common root cause of adverse clinical events. Problematic communication domains are difficult to decipher, and communication improvement strategies are scarce. This study compared perioperative incident reports (IR) identifying potential communication failures with the results of a contemporaneous peri-operative Relational Coordination (RC) survey. We hypothesised that IR-prevalent themes would map to areas-of-weakness identified in the RC survey. Perioperative IRs filed between 2018 and 2020 (n = 6,236) were manually reviewed to identify communication failures (n = 1049). The IRs were disaggregated into seven RC theory domains and compared with the RC survey. Report disaggregation ratings demonstrated a three-way inter-rater agreement of 91.2%. Of the 1,049 communication failure-related IRs, shared knowledge deficits (n = 479, 46%) or accurate communication (n = 465, 44%) were most frequently identified. Communication frequency failures (n = 3, 0.3%) were rarely coded. Comparatively, shared knowledge was the weakest domain in the RC survey, while communication frequency was the strongest, correlating well with our IR data. Linking IR with RC domains offers a novel approach to assessing the specific elements of communication failures with an acute care facility. This approach provides a deployable mechanism to trend intra- and inter-domain progress in communication success, and develop targeted interventions to mitigate against communication failure-related adverse events.