A multicenter study of key stakeholders' perspectives on communicating with surrogates about prognosis in intensive care units.

RATIONALE: Surrogates of critically ill patients often have inaccurate expectations about prognosis. Yet there is little research on how intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians should discuss prognosis, and existing expert opinion-based recommendations give only general guidance that has not been validated with surrogate decision makers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding how prognostic information should be conveyed in critical illness. METHODS: This was a multicenter study at three academic medical centers in California, Pennsylvania, and Washington. One hundred eighteen key stakeholders completed in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants included 47 surrogates of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome; 45 clinicians working in study ICUs, including physicians, nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers; and 26 experts in health communication, decision science, ethics, family-centered care, geriatrics, healthcare disparities, palliative care, psychology, psychiatry, and critical care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was broad support among surrogates for existing expert recommendations, including truthful prognostic disclosure, emotional support, tailoring the disclosure strategy to each family's needs, and checking for understanding. In addition, stakeholders offered suggestions that add specificity to existing recommendations, including: (1) In addition to conveying prognostic estimates, clinicians should help families "see the prognosis for themselves" by showing families radiographic images and explaining the clinical significance of physical manifestations of severe disease at the bedside. (2) Many physicians did not support using numeric estimates to convey prognosis to families, whereas many surrogates, clinicians from other disciplines, and experts believed numbers could be helpful. (3) Clinicians should conceptualize prognostic communication as an iterative process that begins with a preliminary mention of the possibility of death early in the ICU stay and becomes more detailed as the clinical situation develops. (4) Although prognostic information should be initially disclosed by physicians, other members of the multidisciplinary team-nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers-should be given explicit role responsibilities to reinforce physicians' prognostications and help families process a poor prognosis emotionally. CONCLUSIONS: Family members, clinicians, and experts identified specific communication behaviors that clinicians should use to discuss prognosis in the critical care setting. These findings extend existing opinion-based recommendations and should guide interventions to improve communication about prognosis in ICUs.

Seriously ill hospitalized patients' perspectives on the benefits and harms of two models of hospital CPR discussions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe seriously ill patients' perspectives on expert-endorsed approaches for hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) discussions. METHODS: We created two videos depicting a hospital doctor discussing CPR with a seriously ill patient. One depicted a values-based approach with a doctor's recommendation, and one an information-focused approach without a recommendation. During semi-structured interviews, 20 seriously ill hospitalized patients viewed and commented on both videos. We conducted a thematic analysis to describe benefits and harms of specific discussion components. RESULTS: Half of participants reported no preference between the videos; 35% preferred the information-focused, and 15% the values-based. Participants' reactions to the discussion components varied. They identified both benefits and harms with components in both videos, though most felt comfortable with all components (range, 60-65%) except for the doctor's recommendation in the values-based video. Only 40% would feel comfortable receiving a recommendation, while 65% would feel comfortable with the doctor eliciting their CPR preference as in the information-focused video, p=0.03. CONCLUSION: Participants' reactions to expert-endorsed discussion components varied. Most would feel uncomfortable receiving a doctor's recommendation about CPR. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Participants' varied reactions suggest the need to tailor CPR discussions to individual patients. Many patients may find doctor's recommendations to be problematic.

"I'm sitting here by myself ...": experiences of patients with serious illness at an Urban Public Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To describe experiences of serious illness including concerns, preferences, and perspectives on improving end-of-life (EOL) care in underserved inpatients. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of 1-hour interviews with inpatients at a public hospital whose physician "would not be surprised" by the patient's death or intensive care unit (ICU) admission within a year. Patients who were non-English speaking, lacked mental capacity, or had uncontrolled symptoms were excluded. A semistructured interview guide was developed and used for all interviews. We digitally recorded, transcribed, and conducted a thematic analysis of the interviews. RESULTS: Twenty patients participated. Difficult events such as estrangement, homelessness, substance abuse, and imprisonment shaped patients' approaches to serious illness. This influence manifested in interpersonal relationships, conceptualizations of death and concerns about dying, and approaches to coping with EOL. Because patients lacked social support, providers played significant roles at EOL. Patients preferred honest communication with providers and sharing in medical decision-making. A prolonged dying process was feared more than sudden death. Concerns included pain, dying in the hospital, and feeling unwelcome in the hospital. Patients coped by advocating for their own care, engaging with religion/spirituality, and viewing illness as similar to past trauma. Participants suggested that providers listen to their concerns and requested accessible chaplaincy and home-based services. CONCLUSIONS: Providers should consider that difficult life events influence underserved patients' approaches to dying. Attention to patients' specific preferences and palliative care in public hospitals and locations identified as home may improve care for patients who lack social support.