Conflict Management Strategies in the ICU Differ Between Palliative Care Specialists and Intensivists.

OBJECTIVES: Conflict is common between physicians and surrogate decision makers around end-of-life care in ICU. Involving experts in conflict management improve outcomes, but little is known about what differences in conflict management styles may explain the benefit. We used simulation to examine potential differences in how palliative care specialists manage conflict with surrogates about end-of-life treatment decisions in ICUs compared with intensivists. DESIGN: Subjects participated in a high-fidelity simulation of conflict with a surrogate in an ICU. In this simulation, a medical actor portrayed a surrogate decision maker during an ICU family meeting who refuses to follow an advance directive that clearly declines advanced life-sustaining therapies. We audiorecorded the simulation encounters and applied a coding framework to quantify conflict management behaviors, which was organized into two categories: task-focused communication and relationship building. We used negative binomial modeling to determine whether there were differences between palliative care specialists' and intensivists' use of task-focused communication and relationship building. SETTING: Single academic medical center ICU. SUBJECTS: Palliative care specialists and intensivists. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 11 palliative care specialists and 25 intensivists. The palliative care specialists were all attending physicians. The intensivist group consisted of 11 attending physicians, 9 pulmonary and critical care fellows, and 5 internal medicine residents rotating in the ICU. We excluded five residents from the primary analysis in order to reduce confounding due to training level. Physicians' mean age was 37 years with a mean of 8 years in practice. Palliative care specialists used 55% fewer task-focused communication statements (incidence rate ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83; p = 0.005) and 48% more relationship-building statements (incidence rate ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.89-2.46; p = 0.13) compared with intensivists. CONCLUSIONS: We found that palliative care specialists engage in less task-focused communication when managing conflict with surrogates compared with intensivists. These differences may help explain the benefit of palliative care involvement in conflict and could be the focus of interventions to improve clinicians' conflict resolution skills.

Developing a simulation to study conflict in intensive care units.

RATIONALE: Although medical simulation is increasingly being used in healthcare education, there are few examples of how to rigorously design a simulation to evaluate and study important communication skills of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To use existing best practice recommendations to develop a medical simulation to study conflict management in ICUs, then assess the feasibility, acceptability, and realism of the simulation among ICU clinicians. METHODS: The setting was a medical ICU of a tertiary care, university hospital. Participants were 36 physicians who treat critically ill patients: intensivists, palliative medicine specialists, and trainees. Using best-practice guidelines and an iterative, multidisciplinary approach, we developed and refined a simulation involving a critically ill patient, in which the patient had a clear advance directive specifying no use of life support, and a surrogate who was unwilling to follow the patient's preferences. ICU clinicians participated in the simulation and completed surveys and semistructured interviews to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and realism of the simulation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All participants successfully completed the simulation, and all perceived conflict with the surrogate (mean conflict score, 4.2 on a 0-10 scale [SD, 2.5; range, 1-10]). Participants reported high realism of the simulation across a range of criteria, with mean ratings of greater than 8 on a 0 to 10 scale for all domains assessed. During semistructured interviews, participants confirmed a high degree of realism and offered several suggestions for improvements. CONCLUSIONS: We used existing best practice recommendations to develop a simulation model to study physician-family conflict in ICUs that is feasible, acceptable, and realistic.

Investigating conflict in ICUs-is the clinicians' perspective enough?

OBJECTIVE: Most studies have assessed conflict between clinicians and surrogate decision makers in ICUs from only clinicians' perspectives. It is unknown if surrogates' perceptions differ from clinicians'. We sought to determine the degree of agreement between physicians and surrogates about conflict and to identify predictors of physician-surrogate conflict. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Four ICUs of two hospitals in San Francisco, California. PATIENTS: Two hundred and thirty surrogate decision makers and 100 physicians of 175 critically ill patients. MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaires addressing participants' perceptions of whether there was physician-surrogate conflict, as well as attitudes and preferences about clinician-surrogate communication; κ scores to quantify physician-surrogate concordance about the presence of conflict; and hierarchical multivariate modeling to determine predictors of conflict. MAIN RESULTS: Either the physician or surrogate identified conflict in 63% of cases. Physicians were less likely to perceive conflict than surrogates (27.8% vs 42.3%; p = 0.007). Agreement between physicians and surrogates about conflict was poor (κ = 0.14). Multivariable analysis with surrogate-assessed conflict as the outcome revealed that higher levels of surrogates' satisfaction with physicians' bedside manner were associated with lower odds of conflict (odds ratio, 0.75 per 1 point increase in satisfaction; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96). Multivariable analysis with physician-assessed conflict as the outcome revealed that the surrogate having felt discriminated against in the healthcare setting was associated with higher odds of conflict (odds ratio, 17.5; 95% CI, 1.6-190.1) while surrogates' satisfaction with physicians' bedside manner was associated with lower odds of conflict (0-10 scale; odds ratio, 0.76 per 1 point increase; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Conflict between physicians and surrogates is common in ICUs. There is little agreement between physicians and surrogates about whether physician-surrogate conflict has occurred. Further work is needed to develop reliable and valid methods to assess conflict. In the interim, future studies should assess conflict from the perspective of both clinicians and surrogates.

Do physicians disclose uncertainty when discussing prognosis in grave critical illness?

OBJECTIVE: Even when critically ill patients are almost certain to die from their illnesses, there is generally an element of prognostic uncertainty. Little is known about how physicians handle this uncertainty in conversations with surrogate decision makers. We sought to evaluate whether and how physicians discuss prognostic uncertainty with surrogate decision makers of patients who are highly likely, but not certain, to die. DESIGN: We audiotaped and transcribed discussions between clinicians and surrogate decision makers at two major California teaching hospitals from 2006 through 2008. Physicians completed a questionnaire addressing their prognostic estimates for patients' survival to hospital discharge. PARTICIPANTS: We included physicians and surrogates of 12 incapacitated, critically ill patients. MEASUREMENTS: We analyzed transcripts of discussions in which physicians' estimates of patients' chances of hospital survival were 1% to 5%; we coded whether physicians disclosed the prognostic uncertainty and, if so, how they conveyed that death was highly likely but not certain. RESULTS: Physicians' estimates of short-term survival were 1% to 5% for 12 of the 70 patients enrolled in the original study. In 8 of 12 cases, physicians conveyed prognostic uncertainty by using probabilistic language or by an explicit mention of uncertainty. In four cases, physicians made at least one statement that either implied or was ambiguous about whether death was certain. CONCLUSION: We observed variability in how physicians handle prognostic uncertainty in their discussions with surrogates of patients who are highly likely, but not certain, to die, including some circumstances in which physicians stated or implied that death was certain.