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.

Youth Caregivers of Adults in the United States: Prevalence and the Association Between Caregiving and Education.

A growing proportion of individuals adopt family caregiving roles. Family caregivers are the primary providers of long-term care in the United States yet limited federal policy supports exist, despite the known negative impacts of caregiving. There is also limited information about the prevalence of youth/young adult caregivers and the impacts of caregiving at formative ages in the United States. Our objective is to estimate the prevalence of youth caregivers and examine the association of caregiving with educational investments. We use the American Time Use Survey (2013-2019) to identify and describe youth caregivers (aged 15-18) and young adult caregivers (aged 19-22) and compare them with non-caregiving peers. We estimate that there are approximately 1,623,000 youth caregivers and 1,986,000 young adult caregivers, corresponding to 9.2% and 12.7% of these age groups, respectively. However, there is a wide range in the estimated prevalence per year, from approximately 364,000 to 2.8 million youth caregivers and from 353,000 to 2.2 million young adult caregivers, depending on caregiver definition. Unlike adult caregivers, we find that young men and women were nearly equally likely to provide care. We also find that non-White individuals are disproportionately represented as youth caregivers. Compared with non-caregiving peers, both youth and young adult caregivers are less likely to be enrolled in school and, among those enrolled in school, spend significantly less time on educational activities. Considering the association of caregiving among youth/young adults and education, policies supporting youth and young adult caregivers are critical.

Nudging During Pediatric Intensive Care Conferences With Family Members: Retrospective Analysis of Transcripts From a Single-Center, 2015-2019.

OBJECTIVES: Nudging, a behavioral economics concept, subtly influences decision-making without coercion or limiting choice. Despite its frequent use, the specific application of nudging techniques by clinicians in shared decision-making (SDM) is understudied. Our aim was to analyze clinicians' use of nudging in a curated dataset of family care conferences in the PICU. DESIGN: Between 2019 and 2020, we retrospectively studied and coded 70 previously recorded care conference transcripts that involved physicians and families from 2015 to 2019. We focused on decision-making discussions examining instances of nudging, namely salience, framing, options, default, endowment, commission, omission, recommend, expert opinion, certainty, and social norms. Nudging instances were categorized by decision type, including tracheostomy, goals of care, or procedures. SETTING: Single-center quaternary pediatric facility with general and cardiac ICUs. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed the pattern and frequency of nudges in each transcript. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three of the 70 transcripts contained SDM episodes. These episodes represented a total of 11 decision categories based on the subject matter of nudging instances, with 308 decision episodes across all transcripts (median [interquartile range] 5 [4-6] per conference). Tracheostomy was the most frequently discussed decision. A total of 1096 nudging instances were identified across the conferences, with 8 (6-10) nudge types per conference. The most frequent nudging strategy used was gain frame (203/1096 [18.5%]), followed by loss frame (150/1096 [13.7%]). CONCLUSIONS: Nudging is routinely employed by clinicians to guide decision-making, primarily through gain or loss framing. This retrospective analysis aids in understanding nudging in care conferences: it offers insight into potential risks and benefits of these techniques; it highlights ways in which their application has been used by caregivers; and it may be a resource for future trainee curriculum development.

Self-identified rurality in a nationally representative population in the US.

INTRODUCTION: In the US, health services research most often relies on Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) classification codes to measure rurality. This measure is known to misrepresent rurality and does not rely on individual experiences of rurality associated with healthcare inequities. We aimed to determine a patient-centered RUCA-based definition of rurality. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we conducted an online survey asking US residents, 'Do you live in a rural area?' and the rationale for their answer. We evaluated the concordance between their self-identified rurality and their ZIP code-derived RUCA designation of rurality by calculating Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic and percent agreement. RESULTS: Of the 774 participants, 456 (58.9%) and 318 (41.1%) individuals had conventional urban and rural RUCA classifications, respectively. There was only moderate agreement between perceived rurality and rural RUCA classification (κ=0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.42-0.54). Among people living within RUCA 2-3 defined urban areas (n=51), percent agreement was only 19.6%. Discordance was driven by their perception of the population density, proximity to the nearest neighbor, proximity to a metropolitan area, and the number of homes in their area. Based on our results, we reclassified RUCA 2-3 designations as rural, resulting in an increase in overall concordance (κ=0.56; 95%CI=0.50-0.62). DISCUSSION: Patient-centered rural-urban classification is required to effectively evaluate the impact of rurality on health disparities. This study presents a more patient-centric RUCA-based classification of rurality that can be easily operationalized in future research in situations in which self-reported rural status is missing or challenging to obtain. CONCLUSION: Reclassification of RUCA 2-3 as rural represents a more patient-centric definition of rurality.

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.

Associations of Race With Sedation Depth Among Mechanically Ventilated Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of race with proportion of time in deep sedation among mechanically ventilated adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from October 2017 to December 2019. SETTING: Five hospitals within a single health system. PATIENTS: Adult patients who identified race as Black or White who were mechanically ventilated for greater than or equal to 24 hours in one of 12 medical, surgical, cardiovascular, cardiothoracic, or mixed ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The exposure was White compared with Black race. The primary outcome was the proportion of time in deep sedation during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation, defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale values of -3 to -5. For the primary analysis, we performed mixed-effects linear regression models including ICU as a random effect, and adjusting for age, sex, English as preferred language, body mass index, Elixhauser comorbidity index, Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score, Version 2, ICU admission source, admission for a major surgical procedure, and the presence of septic shock. Of the 3337 included patients, 1242 (37%) identified as Black, 1367 (41%) were female, and 1002 (30%) were admitted to a medical ICU. Black patients spent 48% of the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation in deep sedation, compared with 43% among White patients in unadjusted analysis. After risk adjustment, Black race was significantly associated with more time in early deep sedation (mean difference, 5%; 95% CI, 2-7%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There are disparities in sedation during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation between Black and White patients across a diverse set of ICUs. Future work is needed to determine the clinical significance of these findings, given the known poorer outcomes for patients who experience early deep sedation.

Education for Tobacco Use Disorder Treatment: Current State, Evidence, and Unmet Needs.

Background: Tobacco use is undertreated in the medical setting. One driver may be inadequate tobacco use disorder treatment (TUDT) training for clinicians in specialties treating tobacco-dependent patients. Objective: We sought to evaluate the current state of TUDT training for diverse professionals and how these skills are assessed in credentialing exams. Methods: We performed a focused review of current educational practices, evidence-based strategies, and accreditation exam contents focused on TUDT. Results: Among medical students, participants in reviewed studies reported anywhere from 45 minutes to 3 hours of TUDT training throughout their 4-year programs, most often in the form of didactic sessions. Similarly, little TUDT training was reported at the post-graduate (residency, fellowship, continuing medical education) levels, and reported training was typically delivered as time-based (expected hours of instruction) rather than competency-based (demonstration of mastery) learning. Multiple studies evaluated effective TUDT curricula at varied stages of training. More effective curricula incorporated longitudinal sessions and active learning, such as standardized patient encounters or proctored patient visits. Knowledge of TUDT is minimally evaluated on certification exams. For example, the American Board of Internal Medicine blueprint lists TUDT as <2% of one subtopic on both the internal medicine and pulmonary exams. Conclusion: TUDT training for most clinicians is minimal, does not assess competency, and is minimally evaluated on certification exams. Effective, evidence-based TUDT training incorporating active learning should be integrated into medical education at all levels, with attention paid to inclusion on subsequent certifying exams.