Clinicians' Use of Choice Framing in ICU Family Meetings.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the frequency and patterns of clinicians' use of choice frames when discussing preference-sensitive care with surrogate decision-makers in the ICU. DESIGN: Secondary sequential content analysis. SETTING: One hundred one audio-recorded and transcribed conferences between surrogates and clinicians of incapacitated, critically ill adults from a prospective, multicenter cohort study. SUBJECTS: Surrogate decision-makers and clinicians. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four coders identified preference-sensitive decision episodes addressed in the meetings, including topics such as mechanical ventilation, renal replacement, and overall goals of care. Prior critical care literature provided specific topics identified as preference-sensitive specific to the critical care context. Coders then examined each decision episode for the types of choice frames used by clinicians. The choice frames were selected a priori based on decision science literature. In total, there were 202 decision episodes across the 101 transcripts, with 20.3% of the decision episodes discussing mechanical ventilation, 19.3% overall goals of care, 14.4% renal replacement therapy, 14.4% post-discharge care (i.e., discharge location such as a skilled nursing facility), and the remaining 32.1% other topics. Clinicians used default framing, in which an option is presented that will be carried out if another option is not actively chosen, more frequently than any other choice frame (127 or 62.9% of decision episodes). Clinicians presented a polar interrogative, or a "yes or no question" to accept or reject a specific care choice, in 43 (21.3%) decision episodes. Clinicians more frequently presented options emphasizing both potential losses and gains rather than either in isolation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently use default framing and polar questions when discussing preference-sensitive choices with surrogate decision-makers, which are known to be powerful nudges. Future work should focus on designing interventions promoting the informed use of these and the other most common choice frames used by practicing clinicians.

Hope and illness expectations: A cross-sectional study in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The fear of taking away hope hinders clinicians' willingness to share serious news with patients with advanced disease. Unrealistic illness expectations, on the other hand, can complicate decision making and end-of-life care outcomes. Exploration of the association between hope and illness expectations can support clinicians in better communication with their patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore whether realistic illness expectations are associated with reduced hope in people with advanced cancer. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional secondary analysis of baseline data from a primary palliative care cluster-randomized trial CONNECT (data collected from July 2016 to October 2020). Hope was measured by Herth Hope Index. Illness expectations were measured by assessing patients' understanding of their treatment goals, life expectancy, and terminal illness acknowledgement. Multivariable regression was performed, adjusting for demographical and clinical confounders. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with advanced solid cancers recruited across 17 oncology clinics. RESULTS: Data from 672 patients were included in the study, with mean age of 69.3 years (±10.2), 53.6% were female. Proportion of patients indicating realistic expectations varied based on which question was asked from 10% to 46%. Median level of hope was 39 (IQR = 36-43). Multivariate non-inferiority regression did not find any significant differences in hope between patients with more and less realistic illness expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that hope can be sustained while holding both realistic and unrealistic illness expectations. Communication about serious news should focus on clarifying the expectations as well as supporting people's hopes.

Associations of Patient and Parent Characteristics With Parental Decision Regret in the PICU: A Secondary Analysis of the 2015-2017 Navigate Randomized Comparative Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To identify self-reported meaningful decisions made by parents in the PICU and to determine patient and parent characteristics associated with the development of parental decision regret, a measurable, self-reported outcome associated with psychologic morbidity. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Navigate randomized comparative trial (NCT02333396). SETTING: Two tertiary, academic PICUs. PATIENTS: Spanish- or English-speaking parents of PICU patients aged less than 18 years who were expected to remain in the PICU for greater than 24 hours from time of enrollment or who had a risk of mortality greater than 4% based on Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 score. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Between April 2015 and March 2017, 233 parents of 209 patients completed a survey 3-5 weeks post-PICU discharge which included the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), a 5-item, 5-point Likert scale tool scored from 0 (no regret) to 100 (maximum regret). Two hundred nine patient/parent dyads were analyzed. The decisions parents reported as most important were categorized as: procedure, respiratory support, medical management, parent-staff interactions and communication, symptom management, fluid/electrolytes/nutrition, and no decision. Fifty-one percent of parents had some decision regret (DRS > 0) with 19% scoring in the moderate-severe range (DRS 26-100). The mean DRS score was 12.7 (sd 18.1). Multivariable analysis showed that parental Hispanic ethnicity was associated with greater odds ratio (OR 3.12 [95% CI, 1.36-7.13]; p = 0.007) of mild regret. Being parents of a patient with an increased PICU length of stay (LOS) or underlying respiratory disease was associated with greater odds of moderate-severe regret (OR 1.03 [95% CI, 1.009-1.049]; p = 0.004 and OR 2.91 [95% CI, 1.22-6.94]; p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Decision regret was experienced by half of PICU parents in the 2015-2017 Navigate study. The characteristics associated with decision regret (parental ethnicity, PICU LOS, and respiratory disease) are easily identifiable. Further study is needed to understand what contributes to regret in this population and what interventions could provide support and minimize the development of regret.

Challenges of Families of Patients Hospitalized in the PICU: A Preplanned Secondary Analysis From the Navigate Dataset.

OBJECTIVES: To describe challenges experienced by parents of children hospitalized in the PICU during PICU admission as reported by family navigators. DESIGN: A preplanned secondary analysis of open-response data coded via inductive qualitative approach from the Navigate randomized controlled trial (RCT) dataset (ID NCT02333396). SETTING: Two university-affiliated PICUs in the Midwestern United States as part of an RCT. PATIENTS: Two hundred twenty-four parents of 190 PICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: In 2015-2017, trained family navigators assessed and addressed parent needs, offered weekly family meetings, and provided post-PICU discharge parent check-ins as part of a study investigating the effectiveness of a communication support intervention ("PICU Supports"). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed qualitative data recorded by family navigators weekly across 338 encounters. Navigators described families' "biggest challenge," "communication challenges," and ways the team could better support the family. We used an inductive qualitative coding approach and a modified member-checking exercise. The most common difficulties included home life , hospitalization , and diagnosis distress (45.2%, 29.0%, and 17.2% of families, respectively). Navigators often identified that parents had co-occurring challenges. Communication was identified as a "biggest challenge" for 8% of families. Communication challenges included lack of information, team communication , and communication quality (7.0%, 4.8%, and 4.8% of families, respectively). Suggestions for improving care included better medical communication, listening, rapport, and resources. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes families' experiences and challenges assessed throughout the PICU stay. Family navigators reported families frequently experience stressors both internal and external to the hospital environment, and communication challenges between families and providers may be additional sources of distress. Further research should develop and assess interventions aimed at improving provider-family communication and reducing stressors outside the hospitalization itself, such as home life difficulties.

Prevalence of long-term decision regret and associated risk factors in a large cohort of ICU surrogate decision makers.

BACKGROUND: Whether surrogate decision makers regret decisions about the use of life support for incapacitated, critically ill patients remain uncertain. We sought to determine the prevalence of decision regret among surrogates of adult ICU patients and identify factors that influence regret. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the PARTNER 2 trial, which tested a family support intervention for surrogates of critically ill adults. At 6-month follow-up, surrogates rated their regret about life support decisions using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more regret. We used multiple linear regression to identify covariates associated with decision regret based on a psychological construct of regret. We constructed two models using the full cohort; model 1 included patient outcomes; model 2 focused on covariates known at the time of ICU decision-making. Subgroup analyses were also conducted based on patient survival status at hospital discharge and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: 748 of 848 surrogates had complete DRS data. The median (IQR) DRS score was 15 (0, 25). Overall, 54% reported mild regret (DRS 5-25), 19% moderate-strong regret (DRS 30-100), and 27% no regret (DRS 0). Poor patient outcome at 6 months (death or severe functional dependence) was associated with more regret in model 1 (ß 10.1; 95% C.I. 3.2, 17.0). In model 2, palliative care consultation (3.0; 0.1, 5.9), limitations in life support (LS) prior to death (6.3; 3.1, 9.4) and surrogate black race (6.3; 0.3, 12.3) were associated with more regret. Other modulators of regret in subgroup analyses included surrogate age and education level, surrogate-patient relationship, death in hospital (compared to the post-discharge period), and code status at time of ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: One in five ICU surrogate decision makers experience moderate to strong regret about life support decisions in ICU. Poor patient outcomes are linked to more regret. Decisions to limit life support prior to patient death may also increase regret. Future studies are needed to understand how regret relates to decision quality and how to lessen lasting regret.

Prevalence and predictors of shared decision-making in goals-of-care clinician-family meetings for critically ill neurologic patients: a multi-center mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is a joint process where patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians make health choices based on evidence and preferences. We aimed to determine the extent and predictors of shared decision-making for goals-of-care discussions for critically ill neurological patients, which is crucial for patient-goal-concordant care but currently unknown. METHODS: We analyzed 72 audio-recorded routine clinician-family meetings during which goals-of-care were discussed from seven US hospitals. These occurred for 67 patients with 72 surrogates and 29 clinicians; one hospital provided 49/72 (68%) of the recordings. Using a previously validated 10-element shared decision-making instrument, we quantified the extent of shared decision-making in each meeting. We measured clinicians' and surrogates' characteristics and prognostic estimates for the patient's hospital survival and 6-month independent function using post-meeting questionnaires. We calculated clinician-family prognostic discordance, defined as ≥ 20% absolute difference between the clinician's and surrogate's estimates. We applied mixed-effects regression to identify independent associations with greater shared decision-making. RESULTS: The median shared decision-making score was 7 (IQR 5-8). Only 6% of meetings contained all 10 shared decision-making elements. The most common elements were "discussing uncertainty"(89%) and "assessing family understanding"(86%); least frequent elements were "assessing the need for input from others"(36%) and "eliciting the context of the decision"(33%). Clinician-family prognostic discordance was present in 60% for hospital survival and 45% for 6-month independent function. Univariate analyses indicated associations between greater shared decision-making and younger clinician age, fewer years in practice, specialty (medical-surgical critical care > internal medicine > neurocritical care > other > trauma surgery), and higher clinician-family prognostic discordance for hospital survival. After adjustment, only higher clinician-family prognostic discordance for hospital survival remained independently associated with greater shared decision-making (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: Fewer than 1 in 10 goals-of-care clinician-family meetings for critically ill neurological patients contained all shared decision-making elements. Our findings highlight gaps in shared decision-making. Interventions promoting shared decision-making for high-stakes decisions in these patients may increase patient-value congruent care; future studies should also examine whether they will affect decision quality and surrogates' health outcomes.

Hope and advance care planning in advanced cancer: Is there a relationship?

BACKGROUND: Clinicians often cite a fear of giving up hope as a reason they defer advance care planning (ACP) among patients with advanced cancer. The objective of this study was to determine whether engagement in ACP affects hope in these patients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of primary palliative care in advanced cancer. Patients who had not completed ACP at baseline were included in the analysis. ACP was assessed in the forms of an end-of-life (EOL) conversation with one's oncologist and completion of a living will or advance directive (AD). Measurements were obtained at baseline and at 3 months. Hope was measured using the Herth Hope Index (HHI) (range, 12-48; higher scores indicate higher hope). Multivariate regression was performed to assess associations between ACP and hope, controlling for baseline HHI score, study randomization, patient age, religious importance, education, marital status, socioeconomic status, time since cancer diagnosis, pain/symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System), and anxiety/depression score (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale)-all variables known to be associated with ACP and/or hope. RESULTS: In total, 672 patients with advanced cancer were enrolled in the overall study. The mean age was 69 ± 10 years, and the most common cancer types were lung cancer (36%), gastrointestinal cancer (20%) and breast/gynecologic cancers (16%). In this group, 378 patients (56%) had not had an EOL conversation at baseline, of whom 111 of 378 (29%) reported having an EOL conversation by 3 months. Hope was not different between patients who did or did not have an EOL conversation over the study period (mean ± standard deviation ∆HHI, 0.20 ± 5.32 vs -0.53 ± 3.80, respectively; P = .136). After multivariable adjustment, hope was significantly increased in patients who had engaged in an EOL conversation (adjusted mean difference in ∆HHI, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.08-1.82; P = .032). Similarly, of 216 patients (32%) without an AD at baseline, 67 (31%) had subsequently completed an AD. Unadjusted hope was not different between those who did and did not complete an AD (∆HHI, 0.20 ± 3.89 vs -0.91 ± 4.50, respectively; P = .085). After adjustment, hope was significantly higher in those who completed an AD (adjusted mean difference in ∆HHI, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.13-2.49; P = .030). CONCLUSIONS: The current results demonstrate that hope is not decreased after engagement in ACP and indeed may be increased. These findings may provide reassurance to clinicians who are apprehensive about having these important and difficult conversations. LAY SUMMARY: Many oncologists defer advance care planning (ACP) out of concern for giving up hope. This study demonstrates that hope is not decreased in patients who have engaged in ACP either as a conversation with their oncologists or by completing an advance directive. With this information, providers may feel more comfortable having these important conversations with their patients.

Mitigating Inequities and Saving Lives with ICU Triage during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The burdens of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have fallen disproportionately on disadvantaged groups, including the poor and Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities. There is substantial concern that the use of existing ICU triage protocols to allocate scarce ventilators and critical care resources-most of which are designed to save as many lives as possible-may compound these inequities. As governments and health systems revisit their triage guidelines in the context of impending resource shortages, scholars have advocated a range of alternative allocation strategies, including the use of a random lottery to give all patients in need an equal chance of ICU treatment. However, both the save-the-most-lives approach and random allocation are seriously flawed. In this Perspective, we argue that ICU triage policies should simultaneously promote population health outcomes and mitigate health inequities. These ethical goals are sometimes in conflict, which will require balancing the goals of maximizing the number of lives saved and distributing health benefits equitably across society. We recommend three strategies to mitigate health inequities during ICU triage: introducing a correction factor into patients' triage scores to reduce the impact of baseline structural inequities; giving heightened priority to individuals in essential, high-risk occupations; and rejecting use of longer-term life expectancy and categorical exclusions as allocation criteria. We present a practical triage framework that incorporates these strategies and attends to the twin public health goals of promoting population health and social justice.

Inner Deliberations of Surgeons Treating Critically-ill Emergency General Surgery Patients: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: 30% of elderly patients who require emergency general surgery (EGS) die in the year after the operation. Preoperative discussions can determine whether patients receive preference-sensitive care. Theoretically, surgeons frame their conversations after systematically assessing the risks and benefits of management options based on the clinical characteristics of each case. However, little is known about how surgeons actually deliberate about those options. OBJECTIVE: To identify variables that influence surgeons' assessment of management options for critically-ill EGS patients. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 general surgeons in western Pennsylvania who worked in a variety of hospital settings. Interviews explored perioperative decision-making by asking surgeons to think aloud about selected memorable cases and a standardized case vignette of a frail patient with acute mesenteric ischemia. We used constant comparative methods to analyze interview transcripts and inductively developed a framework for the decision-making process. RESULTS: Surgeons averaged 13 years (standard deviation (SD) 10.4) of experience; 40% specialized in trauma/acute care surgery. Important themes regarding the main topic of "perioperative decision-making" included many considerations beyond the clinical characteristics of cases. Surgeons described the importance of variables ranging from the availability of institutional resources to professional norms. Surgeons often remarked on their desire to achieve individual flow, team efficiency, and concordant expectations of treatment and prognosis with patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore how surgeons decide among management options for critically-ill EGS patients. Surgeons' decision-making reflected a broad array of clinical, personal, and institutional variables. Effective interventions to ensure preference-sensitive care for EGS patients must address all of these variables.

A Randomized Trial of a Family-Support Intervention in Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate decision makers for incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle with decisions related to goals of care. Such decisions cause psychological distress in surrogates and may lead to treatment that does not align with patients' preferences. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial involving patients with a high risk of death and their surrogates in five intensive care units (ICUs) to compare a multicomponent family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team with usual care. The primary outcome was the surrogates' mean score on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 6 months (scores range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms). Prespecified secondary outcomes were the surrogates' mean scores on the Impact of Event Scale (IES; scores range from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), the Quality of Communication (QOC) scale (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better clinician-family communication), and a modified Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness (PPPC) scale (scores range from 1 to 4, with lower scores indicating more patient- and family-centered care), as well as the mean length of ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 1420 patients were enrolled in the trial. There was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group in the surrogates' mean HADS score at 6 months (11.7 and 12.0, respectively; beta coefficient, -0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.67 to 0.99; P=0.61) or mean IES score (21.2 and 20.3; beta coefficient, 0.90; 95% CI, -1.66 to 3.47; P=0.49). The surrogates' mean QOC score was better in the intervention group than in the control group (69.1 vs. 62.7; beta coefficient, 6.39; 95% CI, 2.57 to 10.20; P=0.001), as was the mean modified PPPC score (1.7 vs. 1.8; beta coefficient, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.04; P=0.006). The mean length of stay in the ICU was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (6.7 days vs. 7.4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.00; P=0.045), a finding mediated by the shortened mean length of stay in the ICU among patients who died (4.4 days vs. 6.8 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.78; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients and their surrogates, a family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team did not significantly affect the surrogates' burden of psychological symptoms, but the surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication and the patient- and family-centeredness of care were better and the length of stay in the ICU was shorter with the intervention than with usual care. (Funded by the UPMC Health System and the Greenwall Foundation; PARTNER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844492 .).

Stronger therapeutic alliance is associated with better quality of life among patients with advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-oncologist therapeutic alliance is a foundation of quality cancer care, although there is limited research demonstrating its relationship with patient outcomes. We investigated the relationship between therapeutic alliance and patient quality of life with a secondary goal of determining whether the association varied by patients' baseline level of psychological distress. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized clinical trial of 672 patients with advanced cancer participating in a primary palliative care intervention trial. Patients completed baseline self-reported measures of therapeutic alliance (The Human Connection Scale, range: 16-64), overall quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Palliative Care, range: 0-184), and psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, range: 0-42). First, we determined the relationship between therapeutic alliance and quality of life using multivariable regression adjusting for confounders. We then examined if psychological distress was an effect modifier in this relationship by adding interaction effects of depression and anxiety symptoms on therapeutic alliance into the regression model. RESULTS: Patients reported high levels of therapeutic alliance (56.4 ± 7.4) and moderate quality of life (130.3 ± 25.5). Stronger therapeutic alliance was associated with better quality of life after adjusting for other confounding factors (ß = 3.7, 95% confidence interval = 2.1, 5.3, p < 0.01). The relationship between therapeutic alliance and quality of life was generally consistent regardless of psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative, trusting relationships between patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists are associated with better patient quality of life. Future research should investigate the causal, longitudinal nature of these relationships.

Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement.

Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.Purpose and Objectives: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.Methods: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.Main Results: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3) to provide appropriate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.Conclusions: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

Predictors of Surrogate Decision Makers Selecting Life-Sustaining Therapy for Severe Acute Brain Injury Patients: An Analysis of US Population Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a severe acute brain injury admitted to the intensive care unit often have a poor neurological prognosis. In these situations, a clinician is responsible for conducting a goals-of-care conversation with the patient's surrogate decision makers. The diversity in thought and background of surrogate decision makers can present challenges during these conversations. For this reason, our study aimed to identify predictive characteristics of US surrogate decision makers' favoring life-sustaining treatment (LST) over comfort measures only for patients with severe acute brain injury. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey study that had recruited 1588 subjects from an online probability-based US population sample. Seven hundred and ninety-two subjects had randomly received a hypothetical scenario regarding a relative intubated with severe acute brain injury with a prognosis of severe disability but with the potential to regain some consciousness. Seven hundred and ninety-six subjects had been randomized to a similar scenario in which the relative was projected to remain vegetative. For each scenario, we conducted univariate analyses and binary logistic regressions to determine predictors of LST selection among available respondent characteristics. RESULTS: 15.0% of subjects selected LST for the severe disability scenario compared to 11.4% for the vegetative state scenario (p = 0.07), with those selecting LST in both groups expressing less decisional certainty. For the severe disability scenario, independent predictors of LST included having less than a high school education (adjusted OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.23-6.76), concern regarding prognostic accuracy (7.64, 3.61-16.15), and concern regarding the cost of care (4.07, 1.80-9.18). For the vegetative scenario, predictors included the youngest age group (30-44 years, 3.33, 1.02-10.86), male gender (3.26, 1.75-6.06), English as a second language (2.94, 1.09-7.89), Evangelical Protestant (3.72, 1.28-10.84) and Catholic (4.01, 1.72-9.36) affiliations, and low income (< $25 K). CONCLUSION: Several demographic and decisional characteristics of US surrogate decision makers predict LST selection for patients with severe brain injury with varying degrees of poor prognosis. Surrogates concerned about the cost of medical care may nevertheless be inclined to select LST, albeit with high levels of decisional uncertainty, for patients projected to have severe disabilities.

Policies for Mandatory Ethics Consultations at U.S. Academic Teaching Hospitals: A Multisite Survey Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the number of top-ranked U.S. academic institutions that require ethics consultation for specific adult clinical circumstances (e.g., family requests for potentially inappropriate treatment) and to detail those circumstances and the specific clinical scenarios for which consultations are mandated. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study, conducted online or over the phone between July 2016 and October 2017. SETTING: We identified the top 50 research medical schools through the 2016 U.S. News and World Report rankings. The primary teaching hospital for each medical school was included. SUBJECTS: The chair/director of each hospital's adult clinical ethics committee, or a suitable alternate representative familiar with ethics consultation services, was identified for study recruitment. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A representative from the adult ethics consultation service at each of the 50 target hospitals was identified. Thirty-six of 50 sites (72%) consented to participate in the study, and 18 (50%) reported having at least one current mandatory consultation policy. Of the 17 sites that completed the survey and listed their triggers for mandatory ethics consultations, 20 trigger scenarios were provided, with three sites listing two distinct clinical situations. The majority of these triggers addressed family requests for potentially inappropriate treatment (9/20, 45%) or medical decision-making for unrepresented patients lacking decision-making capacity (7/20, 35%). Other triggers included organ donation after circulatory death, initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, denial of valve replacement in patients with subacute bacterial endocarditis, and posthumous donation of sperm. Twelve (67%) of the 18 sites with mandatory policies reported that their protocol(s) was formally documented in writing. CONCLUSIONS: Among top-ranked academic medical centers, the existence and content of official policies regarding situations that mandate ethics consultations are variable. This finding suggests that, despite recent critical care consensus guidelines recommending institutional review as standard practice in particular scenarios, formal adoption of such policies has yet to become widespread and uniform.

Eliminating Categorical Exclusion Criteria in Crisis Standards of Care Frameworks.

During public health crises including the COVID-19 pandemic, resource scarcity and contagion risks may require health systems to shift-to some degree-from a usual clinical ethic, focused on the well-being of individual patients, to a public health ethic, focused on population health. Many triage policies exist that fall under the legal protections afforded by "crisis standards of care," but they have key differences. We critically appraise one of the most fundamental differences among policies, namely the use of criteria to categorically exclude certain patients from eligibility for otherwise standard medical services. We examine these categorical exclusion criteria from ethical, legal, disability, and implementation perspectives. Focusing our analysis on the most common type of exclusion criteria, which are disease-specific, we conclude that optimal policies for critical care resource allocation and the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) should not use categorical exclusions. We argue that the avoidance of categorical exclusions is often practically feasible, consistent with public health norms, and mitigates discrimination against persons with disabilities.

Effects of a Personalized Web-Based Decision Aid for Surrogate Decision Makers of Patients With Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Treatment decisions commonly have to be made in intensive care units (ICUs). These decisions are difficult for surrogate decision makers and often lead to decisional conflict, psychological distress, and treatments misaligned with patient preferences. Objective: To determine whether a decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation improved prognostic concordance between surrogate decision makers and clinicians compared with a usual care control. Design: Multicenter, parallel, randomized, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01751061). Setting: 13 medical and surgical ICUs at 5 hospitals. Participants: Adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and their surrogates, ICU physicians, and ICU nurses. Intervention: A Web-based decision aid provided personalized prognostic estimates, explained treatment options, and interactively clarified patient values to inform a family meeting. The control group received information according to usual care practices followed by a family meeting. Measurements: The primary outcome was improved concordance on 1-year survival estimates, measured with the clinician-surrogate concordance scale (range, 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate more discordance). Secondary and additional outcomes assessed the experiences of surrogates (psychological distress, decisional conflict, and quality of communication) and patients (length of stay and 6-month mortality). Outcomes assessors were blinded to group allocation. Results: The study enrolled 277 patients, 416 surrogates, and 427 clinicians. Concordance improvement did not differ between intervention and control groups (mean difference in score change from baseline, -1.7 percentage points [95% CI, -8.3 to 4.8 percentage points]; P = 0.60). Surrogates' postintervention estimates of patients' 1-year prognoses did not differ between intervention and control groups (median, 86.0% [interquartile range {IQR}, 50.0%] vs. 92.5% [IQR, 47.0%]; P = 0.23) and were substantially more optimistic than results of a validated prediction model (median, 56.0% [IQR, 43.0%]) and physician estimates (median, 50.0% [IQR, 55.5%]). Eighty-two intervention surrogates (43%) favored a treatment option that was more aggressive than their report of patient preferences. Although intervention surrogates had greater reduction in decisional conflict than control surrogates (mean difference in change from baseline, 0.4 points [CI, 0.0 to 0.7 points]; P = 0.041), other surrogate and patient outcomes did not differ. Limitation: Contamination among clinicians could have biased results toward the null hypothesis. Conclusion: A decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation did not improve prognostic concordance between clinicians and surrogates, reduce psychological distress among surrogates, or alter clinical outcomes. Decision support in acute care settings may require greater individualized attention for both the cognitive and affective challenges of decision making. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Effect of Documenting Prognosis on the Information Provided to ICU Proxies: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Critical Care Choosing Wisely Task Force recommends that intensivists offer patients at high risk for death or severe functional impairment the option of pursuing care focused on comfort. We tested the a priori hypothesis that intensivists who are prompted to document patient prognosis are more likely to disclose prognosis and offer comfort-focused care. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02721810). SETTING: High-fidelity Simulation Center in Baltimore, MD. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixteen intensivists from 17 states. INTERVENTION: All intensivists reviewed a paper-based medical record for a hypothetical patient on ICU day 3 and answered four survey questions about the patient's medical management. Intensivists randomized to the intervention group answered three additional questions about patient prognosis. Thereafter, each intensivist participated in a standardized, video-recorded, simulated family meeting with an actor performing a standardized portrayal of the patient's daughter. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two blinded intensivists reviewed deidentified written transcripts of all simulated family meetings. The primary outcome was the blinded reviewers' assessment that the intensivist had presented the option of care focused entirely on comfort. Secondary outcomes included disclosing risk of death. All outcomes were planned prior to data collection. Among the 63 intensivists randomized to the intervention, 50 (79%) expected the patient to die during the hospitalization and 58 (92%) expected the patient to have new functional impairments preventing independent living. Intensivists in the intervention versus control group were no more likely to offer the option of care focused on comfort (13% vs 13%; 95% CI, -13% to 12%; p = 1.0) but were more likely to inform the daughter that her father was sick enough to die (68% vs 43%; 95% CI, 5-44%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Documenting prognosis may help intensivists disclose prognosis to ICU proxies, but in isolation, it is unlikely to change the treatment options offered during initial family meetings.

A Multicenter Study of the Causes and Consequences of Optimistic Expectations About Prognosis by Surrogate Decision-Makers in ICUs.

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 (ß 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 (ß 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.