Family perspectives on end-of-life care after surgery: A qualitative analysis of the veteran affairs bereaved family surveys.

BACKGROUND: Using open-text responses from the Bereaved Family Survey (BFS), we sought to explore Veteran family experiences on end-of-life care after surgery. METHODS: We evaluated 936 open-text responses for all decedents who underwent any high-risk surgical procedure across 124 Veterans Affairs facilities between 2010 and 2019. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Respondents expressed a belief in the decedent's unnecessary pain, expressing distrust in the treatment decisions of the care team. Limited communication regarding the severity of disease or risks of surgery caused conflicting and unresolved narratives regarding the cause or timing of death. Respondents described feelings of disempowerment when they were not involved in decision-making and when their wishes were not respected. CONCLUSIONS: Timely and sensitive conversations, including acknowledging uncertainty in outcomes, may ensure a more positive experience for bereaved families.

Is Everyone Beating Around the Bush?: A Qualitative Study Examining the Status of Shared Decision-Making Between Veterans Affairs Providers and Surgical Patients in the ICU.

Objective: We sought to determine if and how providers use elements of shared decision-making (SDM) in the care of surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Background: SDM is the gold standard for decision-making in the ICU. However, it is unknown if this communication style is used in caring for critically ill surgical patients. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with providers who provide ICU-level care to surgical patients in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Interviews were designed to examine end-of-life care among veterans who have undergone surgery and require ICU-level care. Results: Forty-eight providers across 14 Veterans Affairs hospitals were interviewed. These participants were diverse with respect to age, race, and sex. Participant dialogue was deductively mapped into 8 established SDM components: describing treatment options; determining roles in the decision-making process; fostering partnerships; health care professional preferences; learning about the patient; patient preferences; supporting the decision-making process; and tailoring the information. Within these components, participants shared preferred tools and tactics used to satisfy a given SDM component. Participants also noted numerous barriers to achieving SDM among surgical patients. Conclusions: Providers use elements of SDM when caring for critically ill surgical patients. Additionally, this work identifies facilitators that can be leveraged and barriers that can be addressed to facilitate better communication and decision-making through SDM. These findings are of value for future interventions that seek to enhance SDM among surgical patients both in the ICU and in other settings.

To feel or not to feel: a scoping review and mixed-methods meta-synthesis of moral distress among surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing concern about the prevalence and impact of moral distress among healthcare workers. While this body of literature is growing, research specifically examining sources of moral distress among surgeons remains sparse. The unique attributes of the surgeon-patient relationship and the context of surgery may expose surgeons to sources of distress that are distinct from other healthcare providers. To date, a summative assessment of moral distress among surgeons does not exist. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of studies focused on moral distress among surgeons. Using guidelines established by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), relevant articles were identified in EBSCOhost PsycINFO, Elsevier EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, and Wiley Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Library from January 1, 2009 to September 29, 2022. Detailed data abstraction was performed on a predetermined instrument and compared across studies. A mixed-methods meta-synthesis was employed for data analysis, and both deductive and inductive methodology was used in our thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,003 abstracts were screened, and 26 articles (19 quantitative and 7 qualitative) were included for full-text review. Of these, 10 focused only on surgeons. Our analysis revealed numerous definitions of moral distress and 25 instruments used to understand the sources of distress. Moral distress among surgeons is complex and influenced by factors at multiple levels, The most frequent sources originate at the individual and interpersonal levels. However, the environmental, community and policy levels also noted sources of distress. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed articles identified several common themes and sources of moral distress among surgeons. We also found that research investigating sources of moral distress among surgeons is relatively sparse and confounded by various definitions of moral distress, multiple measurement tools, and frequently conflated terms of moral distress, moral injury, and burnout. This summative assessment presents a model of moral distress delineating these distinct terms, which may be applied to other professions at risk for moral distress.