Reasons for physician-related variability in end-of-life decision-making in intensive care.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that the individual physician is the main factor influencing variability in end-of-life decision-making in intensive care units. End-of-life decisions are complex and should be adapted to each patient. Physician-related variability is problematic as it may result in unequal assessments that affect patient outcomes. The primary aim of this study was to investigate factors contributing to physician-related variability in end-of-life decision-making. METHOD: This is a qualitative substudy of a previously conducted study. In-depth thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with 19 critical care specialists from five different Swedish intensive care units was performed. Interviews took place between 1 February 2017 and 31 May 2017. RESULTS: Factors influencing physician-related variability consisted of different assessment of patient preferences, as well as intensivists' personality and values. Personality was expressed mainly through pace and determination in the decision-making process. Personal prejudices appeared in decisions, but few respondents had personally witnessed this. Avoidance of criticism and conflicts as well as individual strategies for emotional coping were other factors that influenced physician-related variability. Many respondents feared criticism for making their assessments, and the challenging nature of end-of-life decision-making lead to avoidance as well as emotional stress. CONCLUSION: Variability in end-of-life decision-making is an important topic that needs further investigation. It is imperative that such variability be acknowledged and addressed in a more formal and transparent manner. The ethical issues faced by intensivists have recently been compounded by the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating in profound terms the importance of the topic.

Swedish intensivists' experiences and attitudes regarding end-of-life decisions.

BACKGROUND: To make end-of-life (EOL) decisions is a complex and challenging task for intensive care physicians and a substantial variability in this process has been previously reported. However, a deeper understanding of intensivists' experiences and attitudes regarding the decision-making process is still, to a large extent, lacking. The primary aim of this study was to address Swedish intensivists' experiences, beliefs and attitudes regarding decision-making pertaining to EOL decisions. Second, we aimed to identify underlying factors that may contribute to variability in the decision-making process. METHOD: This is a descriptive, qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews with nineteen intensivists from five different Swedish hospitals, with different ICU levels, were performed from 1 February 2017 to 31 May 2017. RESULTS: Intensivists strive to make end-of-life decisions that are well-grounded, based on sufficient information. Consensus with the patient, family and other physicians is important. Concurrently, decisions that are made with scarce information or uncertain medical prognosis, decisions made during on-call hours and without support from senior consultants cause concern for many intensivists. Underlying factors that contribute to the variability in decision-making are lack of continuity among senior intensivists, lack of needed support during on-call hours and disagreements with physicians from other specialties. There is also an individual variability primarily depending on the intensivist's personality. CONCLUSION: Swedish intensivists' wish to make end-of-life decisions based on sufficient information, medically certain prognosis and consensus with the patient, family, staff and other physicians. Swedish intensivists' experience a variability in end-of-life decisions, which is generally accepted and not questioned.

[The ward round of the future ­ a person-centred, team-based meeting with the patient]. / Framtidens rond ­ ett personcentrerat och teambaserat möte med patienten - Den traditionella ronden går inte att försvara etiskt eller juridiskt.

The aim of this article is to elucidate the traditional ward round from an historical, ethical and legal perspective. On the traditional ward round in hospitals, a senior clinician leads a group of other clinicians and health professionals on a walking tour through the ward to visit the patients for whom they are responsible at bedside. It is a long-lived tradition or routine, which has been substantially resistant to change. We recommend that work designed to improve the ward round should begin from values or ethical principles, such as respecting the patient's integrity and right to participate in decision-making. Moreover, the focal point should be creating opportunities for ¼the good meeting« and patient narratives. A team-based, person-centred ward round has been implemented in some hospitals in Sweden. The patient meets the ward team in a separate room to discuss the plan of care together. We argue that it is no longer possible to defend the traditional way of walking rounds, either ethically or legally.

Guidance for ambulance personnel on decisions and situations related to out-of-hospital CPR.

Ethical guidelines on out-of-hospital cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are designed to provide substantial guidance for the people who have to make decisions and deal with situations in the real world. The crucial question is whether it is possible to formulate practical guidelines that will make things somewhat easier for ambulance personnel. The aims of this article are to address the ethical aspects related to out-of-hospital CPR, primarily to decisions on not starting or terminating resuscitation attempts, using the views and experience of ambulance personnel as a starting point, and to summarise the key points in a practice guideline on the subject.

Views of patients with heart failure about their role in the decision to start implantable cardioverter defibrillator treatment: prescription rather than participation.

BACKGROUND: There is a shortage of reports on what potential recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) need to be informed about and what role they can and want to play in the decision-making process when it comes to whether or not to implant an ICD. AIMS: To explore how patients with heart failure and previous episodes of malignant arrhythmia experience and view their role in the decision to initiate ICD treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A qualitative content analysis of semistructured interviews was used. The study population consisted of 31 outpatients with moderate heart failure at the time of their first ICD implantation. SETTING: The study was performed at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden. RESULTS: None of the respondents had discussed the alternative option of receiving treatment with anti-arrhythmic drugs, the estimated risk of a fatal arrhythmia, or the expected time of survival from heart failure in itself. Even so, very little criticism was directed at the lack of information or the lack of participation in the decision-making process. The respondents felt that they had to rely on the doctors' recommendation when it comes to such a complex and important decision. None of them regretted implantation of the ICD. CONCLUSIONS: The respondents were confronted by a matter of fact. They needed an ICD and were given an offer they could not refuse, simply because life was precious to them. Being able to give well-informed consent seemed to be a matter of less importance for them.

Experiences and concerns among patients being treated for atypical chest pain.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who are discharged from the hospital without receiving a clear-cut diagnosis of their chest pain continue to consume health care because of disabling physical and psychological symptoms. By identifying their experiences and concerns following hospitalization, an empirical basis for discussions on ways of improving the care of these particular patients will be obtained. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 38 patients with a diagnosis of unspecified chest pain was carried out. RESULTS: Two-thirds of the respondents had unanswered questions and concerns that had not been addressed. They found it difficult to understand why they had not undergone more tests. They requested an explanation for their chest pain, at the very least, or were worried about the future. Some respondents accepted the fact that they had not been given a sufficient amount of time and information. They referred to the stressful working situation of the physicians, the view that their admission could be regarded as unnecessary or that physicians at the hospital could not be expected to do more than exclude serious diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals should address their patients' questions and fears properly and provide them with the most probable explanation for their symptoms. When taking the harmlessness of their symptoms or the situation of their caregivers into account, patients may find it inappropriate to impose further demands on care.

Familial hypercholesterolemia: ethical, practical and psychological problems from the perspective of patients.

The main aim of the study was to explore the extent to which familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) influences the life of the patients affected. The study employed a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 23 outpatients who were being treated following a diagnosis of heterozygous FH at a tertiary hospital in Göteborg, Sweden. Some interviewees reported concerns related to their medication and feelings of guilt when not complying with treatment recommendations. However, none of the respondents expressed sustained emotional distress or would have preferred to be ignorant of their diagnosis. Apart from being more observant about food intake, their awareness of FH did not appear to have had a substantial impact on their way of life. In fact, those who did not suffer from any other diseases generally regarded themselves as healthy. Discussing the genetic constitution with family members with whom they had close contact was natural, but informing distant family members was not.

When is a patient with heart failure adequately informed? A study of patients' knowledge of and attitudes toward medical information.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to explore patients' knowledge of heart failure and their attitudes toward medical information (prognostic information in particular) and to assess different patient-related factors that might hamper the improvement of patients' knowledge. Moreover, taking the data obtained into account, we analyzed ethical aspects of information disclosure to patients with heart failure. SETTING: The study was performed at Sahlgren's University Hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. DESIGN: The study was a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews. PATIENTS: The sample included 40 patients with various stages of chronic heart failure. RESULTS: Many patients had only a limited understanding of their disease, but they still claimed that they were satisfied with the information they received. Some of them seemed to accept, to be indifferent to, or to be unaware of their low level of knowledge. The majority did not request prognostic information. CONCLUSION: We argue that patients with heart failure are adequately informed when they have reached the level of knowledge that enables them to be managed as effectively and securely as possible while being satisfied with the information provided. To give adequate information, health care providers should determine the patients' level of knowledge and explore why those patients who have a limited understanding do not assimilate or request information.

[Ethics in everyday care. The dialogue is physician's most important tool]. / Etik i sjukvårdens vardag. Dialogen är läkarens viktigaste redskap.

The principle of autonomy brings questions about the dialogue between physicians and their patients in focus. The controversial issue is not if, but when and how to inform patients about their diagnosis, prognosis and treatment options. In difficult situations the main problem is to find a reasonable balance between respect for self-determination and the obligation of beneficence, i.e. the professional responsibility based on assessments of the patient's best interest. One important tool for dealing with this balance in everyday practice is the art of communication with the patient.