Evaluating interventions to improve ethical decision making in clinical practice: a review of the literature and reflections on the challenges posed.

Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing acknowledgement of the importance of recognising the ethical dimension of clinical decision-making. Medical professional regulatory authorities in some countries now include ethical knowledge and practice in their required competencies for undergraduate and post graduate medical training. Educational interventions and clinical ethics support services have been developed to support and improve ethical decision making in clinical practice, but research evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions has been limited. We undertook a systematic review of the published literature on measures or models of evaluation used to assess the impact of interventions to improve ethical decision making in clinical care. We identified a range of measures to evaluate educational interventions, and one tool used to evaluate a clinical ethics support intervention. Most measures did not evaluate the key impact of interest, that is the quality of ethical decision making in real-world clinical practice. We describe the results of our review and reflect on the challenges of assessing ethical decision making in clinical practice that face both developers of educational and support interventions and the regulatory organisations that set and assess competency standards.

U.K. Intensivists' Preferences for Patient Admission to ICU: Evidence From a Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Deciding whether to admit a patient to the ICU requires considering several clinical and nonclinical factors. Studies have investigated factors associated with the decision but have not explored the relative importance of different factors, nor the interaction between factors on decision-making. We examined how ICU consultants prioritize specific factors when deciding whether to admit a patient to ICU. DESIGN: Informed by a literature review and data from observation and interviews with ICU clinicians, we designed a choice experiment. Senior intensive care doctors (consultants) were presented with pairs of patient profiles and asked to prioritize one of the patients in each task for admission to ICU. A multinomial logit and a latent class logit model was used for the data analyses. SETTING: Online survey across U.K. intensive care. SUBJECTS: Intensive care consultants working in NHS hospitals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the factors investigated, patient's age had the largest impact at admission followed by the views of their family, and severity of their main comorbidity. Physiologic measures indicating severity of illness had less impact than the gestalt assessment by the ICU registrar. We identified four distinct decision-making patterns, defined by the relative importance given to different factors. CONCLUSIONS: ICU consultants vary in the importance they give to different factors in deciding who to prioritize for ICU admission. Transparency regarding which factors have been considered in the decision-making process could reduce variability and potential inequity for patients.

Investigating the impact of brief training in decision-making on treatment escalation to intensive care using objective structured clinical examination-style scenarios.

Background: The decision to admit patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) is complex. Structuring the decision-making process may be beneficial to patients and decision-makers alike. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and impact of a brief training intervention on ICU treatment escalation decisions using the Warwick model- a structured decision-making framework for treatment escalation decisions. Methods: Treatment escalation decisions were assessed using Objective Structured Clinical Examination-style scenarios. Participants were ICU and anaesthetic registrars with experience of making ICU admission decisions. Participants completed one scenario, followed by training with the decision-making framework and subsequently a second scenario. Decision-making data was collected using checklists, note entries and post-scenario questionnaires. Results: Twelve participants were enrolled. Brief decision-making training was successfully delivered during the normal ICU working day. Following training participants demonstrated greater evidence of balancing the burdens and benefits of treatment escalation. On visual analogue scales of 0-10, participants felt better trained to make treatment escalation decisions (4.9 vs 6.8, p = 0.017) and felt their decision-making was more structured (4.7 vs 8.1, p = 0.017).Overall, participants provided positive feedback and reported feeling more prepared for the task of making treatment escalation decisions. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a brief training intervention is a feasible way to improve the decision-making process by improving decision-making structure, reasoning and documentation. Training was implemented successfully, acceptable to participants and participants were able to apply their learning. Further studies of regional and national cohorts are needed to determine if training benefit is sustained and generalisable.

Moral distress among intensive care unit professions in the UK: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the experience of moral distress among intensive care unit (ICU) professionals in the UK. DESIGN: Mixed methods: validated quantitative measure of moral distress followed by purposive sample of respondents who underwent semistructured interviews. SETTING: Four ICUs of varying sizes and specialty facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals working in ICU. RESULTS: 227 questionnaires were returned and 15 interviews performed. Moral distress occurred across all ICUs and professional demographics. It was most commonly related to providing care perceived as futile or against the patient's wishes/interests, followed by resource constraints compromising care. Moral distress score was independently influenced by profession (p=0.02) (nurses 117.0 vs doctors 78.0). A lack of agency was central to moral distress and its negative experience could lead to withdrawal from engaging with patients/families. One-third indicated their intention to leave their current post due to moral distress and this was greater among nurses than doctors (37.0% vs 15.0%). Moral distress was independently associated with an intention to leave their current post (p<0.0001) and a previous post (p=0.001). Participants described a range of individualised coping strategies tailored to the situations faced. The most common and highly valued strategies were informal and relied on working within a supportive environment along with a close-knit team, although participants acknowledged there was a role for structured and formalised intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Moral distress is widespread among UK ICU professionals and can have an important negative impact on patient care, professional wellbeing and staff retention, a particularly concerning finding as this study was performed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moral distress due to resource-related issues is more severe than comparable studies in North America. Interventions to support professionals should recognise the individualistic nature of coping with moral distress. The value of close-knit teams and supportive environments has implications for how intensive care services are organised.

Mobilisation in the EveNing to prevent and TreAt deLirium (MENTAL): a mixed-methods, randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Background: Delirium is common in critically ill patients and associated with longer hospital stays, increased morbidity and higher healthcare costs. Non-pharmacological interventions have been advocated for delirium management, however there is little evidence evaluating feasibility and acceptability of physical interventions administered in the evening. The aim of this study was to conduct a feasibility trial of evening mobilisation to prevent and treat delirium in patients admitted to intensive care. Methods: In this mixed-methods, randomised controlled feasibility trial we recruited participants from intensive care units at two university hospitals in the United Kingdom. Eligible participants who were able to respond to verbal stimulus (Richmond agitation and sedation scale ≥3) and expected to stay in intensive care for at least 24 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care or usual care plus evening mobilisation. The evening mobilisation was delivered between 19:00 and 21:00, for up to seven consecutive evenings or ICU discharge, whichever was sooner. All outcome assessments were completed by a team member blinded to randomisation and group allocation. Primary objective was to assess feasibility and acceptability of evening mobilisation. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment, consent and retention rates, and intervention fidelity. Intervention acceptability was evaluated through semi-structured interviews of participants and staff. Secondary outcomes included prevalence in incidence and duration of delirium, measured using the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05401461. Findings: Between July 16th, 2022, and October 31st, 2022, 58 eligible patients (29 usual care; 29 usual care plus evening mobilisation) were enrolled. We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of both the trial design and evening mobilisation intervention. Consent and retention rates over three months were 88% (58/66) and 90% (52/58) respectively, with qualitative analysis demonstrating good acceptability reported by both participants and staff. Secondary outcomes for the evening intervention group compared with the control group were: delirium incidence 5/26 (19%; 95% CI: 6-39%) vs 8/28 (29%; 95% CI: 13-49%) and mean delirium duration 2 days (SD 0.7) vs 4.25 days (SD 2.0). Interpretation: Results of this trial will inform the development of a definitive full-scale randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of evening mobilisation to treat delirium and improve health-related outcomes. Funding: None.

Impaired alveolar macrophage 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 reductase activity contributes to increased pulmonary inflammation and mortality in sepsis-related ARDS.

Background: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a devastating pulmonary inflammatory disorder, commonly precipitated by sepsis. Glucocorticoids are immunomodulatory steroids that can suppress inflammation. Their anti-inflammatory properties within tissues are influenced by their pre-receptor metabolism and amplification from inactive precursors by 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type-1 (HSD-1). We hypothesised that in sepsis-related ARDS, alveolar macrophage (AM) HSD-1 activity and glucocorticoid activation are impaired, and associated with greater inflammatory injury and worse outcomes. Methods: We analysed broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) and circulating glucocorticoid levels, AM HSD-1 reductase activity and Receptor for Advanced Glycation End-products (RAGE) levels in two cohorts of critically ill sepsis patients, with and without ARDS. AM HSD-1 reductase activity was also measured in lobectomy patients. We assessed inflammatory injury parameters in models of lung injury and sepsis in HSD-1 knockout (KO) and wild type (WT) mice. Results: No difference in serum and BAL cortisol: cortisone ratios are shown between sepsis patients with and without ARDS. Across all sepsis patients, there is no association between BAL cortisol: cortisone ratio and 30-day mortality. However, AM HSD-1 reductase activity is impaired in patients with sepsis-related ARDS, compared to sepsis patients without ARDS and lobectomy patients (0.075 v 0.882 v 0.967 pM/hr/106 AMs, p=0.004). Across all sepsis patients (with and without ARDS), impaired AM HSD-1 reductase activity is associated with defective efferocytosis (r=0.804, p=0.008) and increased 30-day mortality. AM HSD-1 reductase activity negatively correlates with BAL RAGE in sepsis patients with ARDS (r=-0.427, p=0.017). Following intra-tracheal lipopolysaccharide (IT-LPS) injury, HSD-1 KO mice demonstrate increased alveolar neutrophil infiltration, apoptotic neutrophil accumulation, alveolar protein permeability and BAL RAGE concentrations compared to WT mice. Caecal Ligation and Puncture (CLP) injury in HSD-1 KO mice results in greater peritoneal apoptotic neutrophil accumulation compared to WT mice. Conclusions: AM HSD-1 reductase activity does not shape total BAL and serum cortisol: cortisone ratios, however impaired HSD-1 autocrine signalling renders AMs insensitive to the anti-inflammatory effects of local glucocorticoids. This contributes to the decreased efferocytosis, increased BAL RAGE concentrations and mortality seen in sepsis-related ARDS. Upregulation of alveolar HSD-1 activity could restore AM function and improve clinical outcomes in these patients.

The experiences of health care professionals, patients, and families of the process of referral and admission to intensive care: A systematic literature review.

Treatment in an intensive care unit can be life-saving but it can be distressing and not every patient can benefit. Decisions to admit a patient to an intensive care unit are complex. We wished to explore how the decision to refer or admit is experienced by those involved, and undertook a systematic review of the literature to answer the research question: What are the experiences of health care professionals, patients, and families, of the process of referral and admission to an intensive care unit? Twelve relevant studies were identified, and a thematic analysis was conducted. Most studies involved health care professionals, with only two considering patients' or families' experiences. Four themes were identified which influenced experiences of intensive care unit referral and review: the professional environment; communication; the allocation of limited resources; and acknowledging uncertainty. Patients' and families' experiences have been under-researched in this area.

Implementing an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to intensive care: Results of feasibility testing in three NHS hospitals.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Decisions about whether to refer or admit a patient to an intensive care unit (ICU) are clinically, organizationally, and ethically challenging. Many explicit and implicit factors influence these decisions, and there is substantial variability in how they are made, leading to concerns about access to appropriate treatment for critically ill patients. There is currently no guidance to support doctors making these decisions. We developed an intervention with the aim of supporting doctors to make more transparent, consistent, patient-centred, and ethically justified decisions. This paper reports on the implementation of the intervention at three NHS hospitals in England and evaluates its feasibility in terms of usage, acceptability, and perceived impact on decision making. METHODS: A mixed method study including quantitative assessment of usage and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: There was moderate uptake of the framework (28.2% of referrals to ICU across all sites during the 3-month study period). Organizational structure and culture affected implementation. Concerns about increased workload in the context of limited resources were obstacles to its use. Doctors who used it reported a positive impact on decision making, with better articulation and communication of reasons for decisions, and greater attention to patient wishes. The intervention made explicit the uncertainty inherent in these decisions, and this was sometimes challenging. The patient and family information leaflets were not used. CONCLUSIONS: While it is feasible to implement an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to ICU, embedding the intervention into existing organizational culture and practice would likely increase adoption. The doctor-facing elements of the intervention were generally acceptable and were perceived as making ICU decision making more transparent and patient-centred. While there remained difficulties in articulating the clinical reasoning behind some decisions, the intervention offers an important step towards establishing a more clinically and ethically sound approach to ICU admission.

Biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAPrapid2): a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection, yet accurate diagnosis remains difficult, leading to overuse of antibiotics. Low concentrations of IL-1ß and IL-8 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid have been validated as effective markers for exclusion of ventilator-associated pneumonia. The VAPrapid2 trial aimed to determine whether measurement of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid IL-1ß and IL-8 could effectively and safely improve antibiotic stewardship in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. METHODS: VAPrapid2 was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in patients admitted to 24 ICUs from 17 National Health Service hospital trusts across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were screened for eligibility and included if they were 18 years or older, intubated and mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h, and had suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (intervention group) or routine use of antibiotics (control group) using a web-based randomisation service hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. Patients were randomised using randomly permuted blocks of size four and six and stratified by site, with allocation concealment. Clinicians were masked to patient assignment for an initial period until biomarker results were reported. Bronchoalveolar lavage was done in all patients, with concentrations of IL-1ß and IL-8 rapidly determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients randomised to the biomarker-based antibiotic recommendation group. If concentrations were below a previously validated cutoff, clinicians were advised that ventilator-associated pneumonia was unlikely and to consider discontinuing antibiotics. Patients in the routine use of antibiotics group received antibiotics according to usual practice at sites. Microbiology was done on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from all patients and ventilator-associated pneumonia was confirmed by at least 104 colony forming units per mL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. The primary outcome was the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, with an additional per-protocol analysis that excluded patients randomly assigned to the intervention group who defaulted to routine use of antibiotics because of failure to return an adequate biomarker result. An embedded process evaluation assessed factors influencing trial adoption, recruitment, and decision making. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN65937227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and Sept 13, 2016, 360 patients were screened for inclusion in the study. 146 patients were ineligible, leaving 214 who were recruited to the study. Four patients were excluded before randomisation, meaning that 210 patients were randomly assigned to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (n=104) or routine use of antibiotics (n=106). One patient in the biomarker-guided recommendation group was withdrawn by the clinical team before bronchoscopy and so was excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. We found no significant difference in the primary outcome of the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0·58). Bronchoalveolar lavage was associated with a small and transient increase in oxygen requirements. Established prescribing practices, reluctance for bronchoalveolar lavage, and dependence on a chain of trial-related procedures emerged as factors that impaired trial processes. INTERPRETATION: Antibiotic use remains high in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Antibiotic stewardship was not improved by a rapid, highly sensitive rule-out test. Prescribing culture, rather than poor test performance, might explain this absence of effect. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and the Wellcome Trust.