Diversity of Parent Emotions and Physician Responses During End-of-Life Conversations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To provide support to parents of critically ill children, it is important that physicians adequately respond to parents' emotions. In this study, we investigated emotions expressed by parents, physicians' responses to these expressions, and parents' emotions after the physicians' responses in conversations in which crucial decisions regarding the child's life-sustaining treatment had to be made. METHODS: Forty-nine audio-recorded conversations between parents of 12 critically ill children and physicians working in the neonatal and pediatric intensive care units of 3 Dutch university medical centers were coded and analyzed by using a qualitative inductive approach. RESULTS: Forty-six physicians and 22 parents of 12 children participated. In all 49 conversations, parents expressed a broad range of emotions, often intertwining, including anxiety, anger, devotion, grief, relief, hope, and guilt. Both implicit and explicit expressions of anxiety were prevalent. Physicians predominantly responded to parental emotions with cognition-oriented approaches, thereby limiting opportunities for parents. This appeared to intensify parents' expressions of anger and protectiveness, although their anxiety remained under the surface. In response to more tangible emotional expressions, for instance, grief when the child's death was imminent, physicians provided parents helpful support in both affect- and cognition-oriented ways. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate the diversity of emotions expressed by parents during end-of-life conversations. Moreover, they offer insight into the more and less helpful ways in which physicians may respond to these emotions. More training is needed to help physicians in recognizing parents' emotions, particularly implicit expressions of anxiety, and to choose helpful combinations of responses.

Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study.

PURPOSE: In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations. METHOD: A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families. RESULTS: Seventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor's line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together. CONCLUSION: This study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation.

How doctors manage conflicts with families of critically ill patients during conversations about end-of-life decisions in neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care.

PURPOSE: Intensive care is a stressful environment in which team-family conflicts commonly occur. If managed poorly, conflicts can have negative effects on all parties involved. Previous studies mainly investigated these conflicts and their management in a retrospective way. This study aimed to prospectively explore team-family conflicts, including its main topics, complicating factors, doctors' conflict management strategies and the effect of these strategies. METHODS: Conversations between doctors in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care unit of a large university-based hospital and families of critically ill patients were audio-recorded from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was still in patients' best interest. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a qualitative deductive approach. RESULTS: Team-family conflicts occurred in 29 out of 101 conversations (29%) concerning 20 out of 36 patients (56%). Conflicts mostly concerned more than one topic. We identified four complicating context- and/or family-related factors: diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, families' strong negative emotions, limited health literacy, and burden of responsibility. Doctors used four overarching strategies to manage conflicts, namely content-oriented, process-oriented, moral and empathic strategies. Doctors mostly used content-oriented strategies, independent of the intensive care setting. They were able to effectively address conflicts in most conversations. Yet, if they did not acknowledge families' cues indicating the existence of one or more complicating factors, conflicts were likely to linger on during the conversation. CONCLUSION: This study underlines the importance of doctors tailoring their communication strategies to the concrete conflict topic(s) and to the context- and family-related factors which complicate a specific conflict.

How Physicians Discuss Uncertainty With Parents in Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians and parents of critically ill neonates and children receiving intensive care have to make decisions on the child's behalf. Throughout the child's illness and treatment trajectory, adequately discussing uncertainties with parents is pivotal because this enhances the quality of the decision-making process and may positively affect the child's and parents' well-being. We investigated how physicians discuss uncertainty with parents and how this discussion evolves over time during the trajectory. METHODS: We asked physicians working in the NICU and PICU of 3 university medical centers to audio record their conversations with parents of critically ill children from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was in the child's best interests. We qualitatively coded and analyzed the anonymized transcripts, thereby using the software tool MAXQDA 2020. RESULTS: Physicians were found to adapt the way they discussed uncertainty with parents to the specific phase of the child's illness and treatment trajectory. When treatment options were still available, physicians primarily focused on uncertainty related to diagnostic procedures, treatment options, and associated risks and effects. Particularly when the child's death was imminent, physicians had less "scientific" guidance to offer. They eliminated most uncertainty and primarily addressed practical uncertainties regarding the child's dying process to offer parents guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Our insights may increase physicians' awareness and enhance their skills in discussing uncertainties with parents tailored to the phase of the child's illness and treatment trajectory and to parental needs in each specific phase.