Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: Semantics Matter.

In 1997, the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) published a statement regarding futile and inadvisable treatments. Recently, five critical care organizations published a consensus statement supporting and expanding upon the 1997 SCCM statement, and the SCCM issued a companion statement defining futile and potentially inappropriate interventions. In all of these statements, there is agreement that the term futile should be used only when an intervention cannot accomplish the intended physiologic goal. The organizations provide recommendations for optimizing communication, however even when clinicians use excellent communication techniques, there are times when competing ethical considerations mean that a surrogate persists in requesting an intervention that the clinician does not believe is justified. In such cases, clinicians should not label the requested intervention as futile, because doing so is disrespectful to patients and families, overly empowers clinicians, and stifles communication. When clinicians believe that they are justified in declining such a request due to differences in values or beliefs, they should refer to the requested treatment as "potentially inappropriate," indicating that the disagreement is based on values, and that any decision to withhold the requested intervention is preliminary until reviewed through a fair process.

Guidelines for Family-Centered Care in the Neonatal, Pediatric, and Adult ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU. METHODS: We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We assembled an international multidisciplinary team of 29 members with expertise in guideline development, evidence analysis, and family-centered care to revise the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered ICU. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative research that explored family-centered care in the ICU. Thematic analyses were conducted to support Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. Patients and families validated the importance of interventions and outcomes. We then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to make recommendations for practice. Recommendations were subjected to electronic voting with pre-established voting thresholds. No industry funding was associated with the guideline development. RESULTS: The scoping review yielded 683 qualitative studies; 228 were used for thematic analysis and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. The systematic review search yielded 4,158 reports after deduplication and 76 additional studies were added from alerts and hand searches; 238 studies met inclusion criteria. We made 23 recommendations from moderate, low, and very low level of evidence on the topics of: communication with family members, family presence, family support, consultations and ICU team members, and operational and environmental issues. We provide recommendations for future research and work-tools to support translation of the recommendations into practice. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

American College of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Parameters for Hemodynamic Support of Pediatric and Neonatal Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: The American College of Critical Care Medicine provided 2002 and 2007 guidelines for hemodynamic support of newborn and pediatric septic shock. Provide the 2014 update of the 2007 American College of Critical Care Medicine "Clinical Guidelines for Hemodynamic Support of Neonates and Children with Septic Shock." DESIGN: Society of Critical Care Medicine members were identified from general solicitation at Society of Critical Care Medicine Educational and Scientific Symposia (2006-2014). The PubMed/Medline/Embase literature (2006-14) was searched by the Society of Critical Care Medicine librarian using the keywords: sepsis, septicemia, septic shock, endotoxemia, persistent pulmonary hypertension, nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines in the newborn and pediatric age groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 2002 and 2007 guidelines were widely disseminated, translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and incorporated into Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Heart Association/Pediatric Advanced Life Support sanctioned recommendations. The review of new literature highlights two tertiary pediatric centers that implemented quality improvement initiatives to improve early septic shock recognition and first-hour compliance to these guidelines. Improved compliance reduced hospital mortality from 4% to 2%. Analysis of Global Sepsis Initiative data in resource rich developed and developing nations further showed improved hospital mortality with compliance to first-hour and stabilization guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The major new recommendation in the 2014 update is consideration of institution-specific use of 1) a "recognition bundle" containing a trigger tool for rapid identification of patients with septic shock, 2) a "resuscitation and stabilization bundle" to help adherence to best practice principles, and 3) a "performance bundle" to identify and overcome perceived barriers to the pursuit of best practice principles.

Shared Decision Making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making is endorsed by critical care organizations; however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills. DESIGN: The American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society were included in the statement. MAIN RESULTS: Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable, including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate.

Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: A Policy Statement From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee.

OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. DESIGN: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.

An Official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy about how to manage requests by patients or surrogates for treatments that clinicians believe should not be administered. PURPOSE: This multisociety statement provides recommendations to prevent and manage intractable disagreements about the use of such treatments in intensive care units. METHODS: The recommendations were developed using an iterative consensus process, including expert committee development and peer review by designated committees of each of the participating professional societies (American Thoracic Society, American Association for Critical Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, European Society for Intensive Care Medicine, and Society of Critical Care). MAIN RESULTS: The committee recommends: (1) Institutions should implement strategies to prevent intractable treatment conflicts, including proactive communication and early involvement of expert consultants. (2) The term "potentially inappropriate" should be used, rather than futile, to describe treatments that have at least some chance of accomplishing the effect sought by the patient, but clinicians believe that competing ethical considerations justify not providing them. Clinicians should explain and advocate for the treatment plan they believe is appropriate. Conflicts regarding potentially inappropriate treatments that remain intractable despite intensive communication and negotiation should be managed by a fair process of conflict resolution; this process should include hospital review, attempts to find a willing provider at another institution, and opportunity for external review of decisions. When time pressures make it infeasible to complete all steps of the conflict-resolution process and clinicians have a high degree of certainty that the requested treatment is outside accepted practice, they should seek procedural oversight to the extent allowed by the clinical situation and need not provide the requested treatment. (3) Use of the term "futile" should be restricted to the rare situations in which surrogates request interventions that simply cannot accomplish their intended physiologic goal. Clinicians should not provide futile interventions. (4) The medical profession should lead public engagement efforts and advocate for policies and legislation about when life-prolonging technologies should not be used. CONCLUSIONS: The multisociety statement on responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units provides guidance for clinicians to prevent and manage disputes in patients with advanced critical illness.

Dermal Abrasion Experienced as an Adverse Effect of the EZ-IO(®).

BACKGROUND: In 2007, an update was released to the pediatric and neonatal septic shock guidelines, which emphasized early use of therapies, specifically, first-hour fluid resuscitation and inotrope therapy. This has led to increased use of intraosseous (IO) access as a source of vascular access. Previously, IO access could be obtained only via a manual IO placement. New semi-automatic devices, such as EZ-IO(®) (Vidacare, Shavano Park, TX), allow for safer and quicker IO access. Data support the use of semi-automatic devices during the acute resuscitation period. CASE REPORT: The patient was a 7-month old girl with VACTERL association (Vertebral defects, Anal atresia, Cardiac defects, Tracheo-Esophageal fistula, Renal anomalies, Limb abnormalities) and complex past medical history. The patient experienced a "choking episode," which led to subsequent apnea and cyanosis. The patient presented in shock to a local pediatric emergency department. After multiple unsuccessful intravenous line attempts, IO access was obtained using the EZ-IO(®). Once in the pediatric intensive care unit with venous access, the IO device was removed and the site had "red bulls-eye target shape" damage to the skin, which appeared consistent with the EZ-IO(®) flange. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: IO device use is increasing due to the most recent pediatric and neonatal septic shock guidelines, which emphasize first-hour fluid resuscitation and inotrope therapy. It is vital that emergency physicians be aware of the adverse effects of semi-automatic IO devices, including dermal abrasion, which has not been reported previously. With proper training and familiarity, it is possible to avoid dermal abrasion as an adverse effect of the semi-automatic IO device.

Telemedicine as a tool to bring clinical ethics expertise to remote locations.

The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities promulgated standards for clinical ethics consultants and is currently developing a national Quality Attestation in Clinical Ethics Consultation to assist facilities in ensuring that those performing clinical ethics consultations meet minimum standards. As the field moves towards such professionalization, there is a need to provide access to qualified clinical ethicists at a broad range of medical facilities. Currently, however, there are insufficient numbers of trained clinical ethicists to staff all healthcare facilities, and many facilities lack the necessary resources to hire staff clinical ethicists. In this review, we describe several models for providing expert clinical ethics support to remote facilities that lack access to qualified clinical ethicists. Based on this analysis, we recommend telemedicine as the optimal model providing expert support to local ethics committee members tasked with providing clinical ethics consultation services.

Choices doctors would make if their infant had hypoplastic left heart syndrome: comparison of survey data from 1999 and 2007.

Data suggest that despite improved surgical outcomes for infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), the past two decades have seen little change in parents' decisions whether to choose surgery or palliative treatment without life-prolonging intervention. Data also suggest that doctors' predictions of the choices they would make if their own infant were diagnosed with HLHS do not correlate with their predictions of surgical outcomes. Although previous studies have compared rates of surgery and palliative treatment without life-prolonging intervention over time, no studies have assessed changes in doctors' attitudes. The current study used descriptive and quantitative statistics to compare responses from American pediatric cardiologists and congenital cardiac surgeons from studies conducted in 1999 and 2007. These doctors were asked what choice they believe they would make for their own affected infant. Comparison of responses from 1999 and 2007 showed no difference in the responses of cardiologists: 1999 (44 % surgery, 17 % palliative treatment, 40 % uncertain) versus 2007 (45 % surgery, 20 % palliative treatment, 35 % uncertain). Among surgeons, there was a non-statistically significant trend away from choosing surgery: 1999 (77 % surgery, 5 % palliative treatment, 18 % uncertain) versus 2007 (56 % surgery, 8 % palliative treatment, 36 % uncertain). In conclusion, these analyses suggest that despite improving surgical outcomes, doctors are no more likely to predict that they would choose surgery for their own hypothetical infant with HLHS. Further research is needed to determine what factors influence choice making in the care of infants with HLHS.