Physician Approaches to Conflict with Families Surrounding End-of-Life Decision-making in the Intensive Care Unit. A Qualitative Study.

RATIONALE: Families of critically ill patients are often asked to make difficult decisions to pursue, withhold, or withdraw aggressive care or resuscitative measures, exercising "substituted judgment" from the imagined standpoint of the patient. Conflict may arise between intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and family members regarding the optimal course of care. OBJECTIVES: To characterize how ICU physicians approach and manage conflict with surrogates regarding end-of-life decision-making. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 18 critical care physicians from four academically affiliated hospitals. Interview transcripts were analyzed using methods of grounded theory. RESULTS: Physicians described strategies for engaging families to resolve conflict about end-of-life decision-making and tending to families' emotional health. Physicians commonly began by gauging family receptiveness to recommendations from the healthcare team. When faced with resistance to recommendations for less aggressive care, approaches ranged from deference to family wishes to various persuasive strategies designed to change families' minds, and some of those strategies may be counterproductive or harmful. The likelihood of deferring to family in the event of conflict was associated with the perceived sincerity of the family's "substituted judgment" and the ability to control patient pain and suffering. Physicians reported concern for the family's emotional needs and made efforts to alleviate the burden on families by assuming decision-making responsibility and expressing nonabandonment and commitment to the patient. Physicians were attentive to repairing damage to their relationship with the family in the aftermath of conflict. Finally, physicians described their own emotional responses to conflict, ranging from frustration and anxiety to satisfaction with successful resolution of conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care physicians described a complex and multilayered approach to physician-family conflict. The reported strategies offer insight into pragmatic approaches to achieving resolution of conflict while attending to both family and physician emotional impact, and they also highlight some potentially unhelpful or harmful behaviors that should be avoided. Further research is needed to evaluate how these strategies are perceived by families and other ICU clinicians and how they affect patient, family, and clinician outcomes.

Association between Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate Status and Resident Physician Decision-making. A National Survey.

RATIONALE: Compared with their Full Code counterparts, patients with do not resuscitate/do not intubate (DNR/DNI) status receive fewer interventions and have higher mortality than predicted by clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether internal medicine residents, the front-line providers for many hospitalized patients, would manage hypothetical patients differently based on code status. We hypothesized respondents would be less likely to provide a variety of interventions to DNR/DNI patients than to Full Code patients. METHODS: Cross-sectional, randomized survey of U.S. internal medicine residents. We created two versions of an internet survey, each containing four clinical vignettes followed by questions regarding possible interventions; the versions were identical except for varying code status of the vignettes. Residency programs were randomly allocated between the two versions. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-three residents responded to the survey. As determined by Chi-squared and Fisher's exact test, decisions to intubate or perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation were largely dictated by patient code status (>94% if Full Code, <5% if DNR/DNI; P < 0.0001 for all scenarios). Resident proclivity to deliver noninvasive interventions (e.g., blood cultures, medications, imaging) was uniformly high (>90%) and unaffected by code status. However, decisions to pursue other aggressive or invasive options (e.g., dialysis, bronchoscopy, surgical consultation, transfer to intensive care unit) differed significantly based on code status in most vignettes. CONCLUSIONS: Residents appear to assume that patients who would refuse cardiopulmonary resuscitation would prefer not to receive other interventions. Without explicit clarification of the patient's goals of care, potentially beneficial care may be withheld against the patient's wishes.

"Do not resuscitate" decisions in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A secondary analysis of clinical trial data.

RATIONALE: Factors and outcomes associated with end-of-life decision-making among patients during clinical trials in the intensive care unit are unclear. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine patterns and outcomes of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) decisions among critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) enrolled in a clinical trial. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from the ARDS Network Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT), collected between 2000 and 2005. We calculated mortality outcomes stratified by code status, and compared baseline characteristics of patients who became DNR during the trial with participants who remained full code. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 809 FACTT participants with a code status recorded, 232 (28.7%) elected DNR status. Specifically, 37 (15.9%) chose to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation alone, 44 (19.0%) elected to withhold some life support measures in addition to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and 151 (65.1%) had life support withdrawn. Admission severity of illness as measured by APACHE III score was strongly associated with election of DNR status (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-2.62; P < 0.0001). Almost all (97.0%; 225 of 232) patients who selected DNR status died, and 79% (225 of 284) of patients who died during the trial were DNR. Among patients who chose DNR status but did not elect withdrawal of life support, 91% (74 of 81) died. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of deaths among clinical trial patients with ARDS were preceded by a DNR order. Unlike other studies of end-of-life decision-making in the intensive care unit, nearly all patients who became DNR died. The impact of variation of practice in end-of-life decision-making during clinical trials warrants further study.