Relieving suffering or intentionally hastening death: where do you draw the line?

OBJECTIVE: End-of-life practices vary worldwide. The objective was to demonstrate that there is no clear-cut distinction between treatments administered to relieve pain and suffering and those intended to shorten the dying process. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study. SETTING: Thirty-seven intensive care units in 17 European countries. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients dying or with any limitation of therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Evaluation of the type of end-of-life category; dates and times of intensive care unit admission, death, or discharge; and decisions to limit therapy, medication, and doses used for active shortening of the dying process and the intent of the doctors prescribing the medication. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Limitation of life-sustaining therapy occurred in 3,086 (72.6%) of 4,248 patients, and 94 (2.2%) underwent active shortening of the dying process. Medication for active shortening of the dying process included administration of opiates (morphine to 71 patients) or benzodiazepines (diazepam to 54 patients) alone or in combination. The median dosage for morphine was 25.0 mg/hr and for diazepam 20.8 mg/hr. Doses of opiates and benzodiazepines were no higher than mean doses used with withdrawal in previous studies in 20 of 66 patients and were within the ranges of doses used in all but one patient. Doctors considered that medications for active shortening of the dying process definitely led to the patient's death in 72 patients (77%), probably led to the patient's death in 11 (12%), and were unlikely to have led to death in 11 (12%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gray area in end-of-life care between treatments administered to relieve pain and suffering and those intended to shorten the dying process.

Reasons, considerations, difficulties and documentation of end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units: the ETHICUS Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physicians' reasoning, considerations and possible difficulties in end-of-life decision-making for patients in European intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: Thirty-seven ICUs in 17 European countries. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3,086 patients for whom an end-of-life decision was taken between January 1999 and June 2000. The dataset excludes patients who died after attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation and brain-dead patients. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Physicians indicated which of a pre-determined set of reasons for, considerations in, and difficulties with end-of-life decision-making was germane in each case as it arose. Overall, 2,134 (69%) of the decisions were documented in the medical record, with inter-regional differences in documentation practice. Primary reasons given by physicians for the decision mostly concerned the patient's medical condition (79%), especially unresponsive to therapy (46%), while chronic disease (12%), quality of life (4%), age (2%) and patient or family request (2%) were infrequent. Good medical practice (66%) and best interests (29%) were the commonest primary considerations reported, while resource allocation issues such as cost effectiveness (1%) and need for an ICU bed (0%) were uncommon. Living wills were considered in only 1% of cases. Physicians in central Europe reported no significant difficulty in 81% of cases, while in northern and southern regions there was no difficulty in 92-93% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: European ICU physicians do not experience difficulties with end-of-life decisions in most cases. Allocation of limited resources is a minor consideration and autonomous choices by patient or family remain unusual. Inter-regional differences were found.

Attitudes of European physicians, nurses, patients, and families regarding end-of-life decisions: the ETHICATT study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate attitudes of Europeans regarding end-of-life decisions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Responses to a questionnaire by physicians and nurses working in ICUs, patients who survived ICU, and families of ICU patients in six European countries were compared for attitudes regarding quality and value of life, ICU treatments, active euthanasia, and place of treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Questionnaires were distributed to 4,389 individuals and completed by 1,899 (43%). Physicians (88%) and nurses (87%) found quality of life more important and value of life less important in their decisions for themselves than patients (51%) and families (63%). If diagnosed with a terminal illness, health professionals wanted fewer ICU admissions, uses of CPR, and ventilators (21%, 8%, 10%, respectively) than patients and families (58%, 49%, 44%, respectively). More physicians (79%) and nurses (61%) than patients (58%) and families (48%) preferred being home or in a hospice if they had a terminal illness with only a short time to live. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life was more important for physicians and nurses than patients and families. More medical professionals want fewer ICU treatments and prefer being home or in a hospice for a terminal illness than patients and families.

Nurses' and physicians' opinions on aggressiveness of treatment for general ward patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate agreement between nurses' and physicians' opinions regarding aggressiveness of treatment and to investigate and compare the rationales on which their opinions were based. Structured interviews regarding 714 patients were performed on seven general wards of a university hospital. The data gathered were then subjected to qualitative and quantitative analyses. There was 86% agreement between nurses' and physicians' opinions regarding full or limited treatment when the answers given as 'uncertain' were excluded. Agreement was less (77%) for patients with a life expectancy of less than one year. Disagreements were not associated with professional status because the physicians considered limiting life-sustaining treatment as often as the nurses. A broad spectrum of rationales was given but the results focus mostly on those for full treatment. The nurses and the physicians had similar bases for their opinions. For the majority of the patients, medical rationales were used, but age and quality of life were also expressed as important determinants. When considering full treatment, nurses used quality-of-life rationales for significantly more patients than the physicians. Respect for patients' wishes had a minor influence.

Communication of end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE: To examine end-of-life (EOL) practices in European ICUs: who makes these decisions, how they are made, communication of these decisions and questions on communication between the physicians, nurses, patients and families. DESIGN: Data collected prospectively on EOL decisions facilitated by a questionnaire including EOL decision categories, geographical regions, mental competency, information about patient wishes, and discussions with patients, families and health care professionals. SETTING: 37 European ICUs in 17 countries. PATIENTS: ICU physicians collected data on 4,248 patients. RESULTS: 95% of patients lacked decision making capacity at the time of EOL decision and patient's wishes were known in only 20% of cases. EOL decisions were discussed with the family in 68% of cases. Physicians reported having more information about patients' wishes and discussions in the northern countries (31%, 88%) than central (16%, 70%) or southern (13%, 48%) countries. The family was more often told (88%) than asked (38%) about EOL decisions. Physicians' reasons for not discussing EOL care with the family included the fact that the patient was unresponsive to therapy (39%), the family was unavailable (28%), and the family was thought not to understand (25%). CONCLUSIONS: ICU patients typically lack decision-making capacity, and physicians know patients' wishes in only 20% of EOL decisions. There were regional differences in discussions of EOL decisions with families and other physicians. In European ICUs there seems to be a need to improve communication.

DNR directives are established early in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

PURPOSE: Setting treatment goals in the intensive care unit (ICU) often involves resuscitation decisions. Our objective was to study the rate of establishing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) directives, determinants, and outcomes of those directives for mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: In a multicentre observational study, we included consecutive adults with no DNR directives within 24 hr of ICU admission who were mechanically ventilated for at least 48 hr. We identified the rate with which DNR directives were established, and factors associated with these directives. RESULTS: Among 765 patients, DNR directives were established for 231 (30.2%) patients; 143 (62.1%) of these were established within the first week. Factors independently associated with a DNR directive were: patient age [> or = 75 yr (hazard ratio [HR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.5-3.4], 65 to 74 yr (HR 1.8, 1.2-2.7), 50 to 64 yr (HR 1.4, 1.0-2.2) relative to < 50 yr); medical rather than surgical diagnosis (HR 1.8, 1.3-2.5); multiple organ dysfunction score (HR 1.7 for each five-point increment, 1.4-2.0); physician prediction of ICU survival [< 10% (HR 15.0, 6.7-33.6)], 10 to 40% [(HR 5.0, 2.3-11.2), 41 to 60% (HR 4.0, 1.8-9.0) relative to > 90%]; and physician perception of patient preference to limit life support (no advanced life support [(HR 5.8, 3.6-9.4) or partial advanced life support (HR 3.2, 2.2-4.6) compared to full measures]. CONCLUSION: One third of mechanically ventilated patients had DNR directives established early during their ICU stay after the first 24 hr of admission. The strongest predictors of DNR directives were physician prediction of low probability of survival, physician perception of patient preference to limit life support, organ dysfunction, medical diagnosis and age.

Clinician discomfort with life support plans for mechanically ventilated patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence and predictors of clinician discomfort with life support plans for ICU patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort in 13 medical-surgical ICUs in four countries. PATIENTS: 657 mechanically ventilated adults expected to stay in ICU at least 72 h. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Daily we documented the life support plan for mechanical ventilation, inotropes and dialysis, and clinician comfort with these plans. If uncomfortable, clinicians stated whether the plan was too technologically intense (the provision of too many life support modalities or the provision of any modality for too long) or not intense enough, and why. At least one clinician was uncomfortable at least once for 283 (43.1%) patients, primarily because plans were too technologically intense rather than not intense enough (93.9% vs. 6.1%). Predictors of discomfort because plans were too intense were: patient age, medical admission, APACHE II score, poor prior functional status, organ dysfunction, dialysis in ICU, plan to withhold dialysis, plan to withhold mechanical ventilation, first week in the ICU, clinician, and city. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician discomfort with life support perceived as too technologically intense is common, experienced mostly by nurses, variable across centers, and is more likely for older, severely ill medical patients, those with acute renal failure, and patients lacking plans to forgo reintubation and ventilation. Acknowledging the sources of discomfort could improve communication and decision making.

Clinician predictions of intensive care unit mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Predicting outcomes for critically ill patients is an important aspect of discussions with families in the intensive care unit. Our objective was to evaluate clinical intensive care unit survival predictions and their consequences for mechanically ventilated patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Fifteen tertiary care centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients > or = 18 yrs of age with expected intensive care unit stay > or = 72 hrs. INTERVENTIONS: We recorded baseline characteristics at intensive care unit admission. Daily we measured multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS), use of advanced life support, patient preferences for life support, and intensivist and bedside intensive care unit nurse estimated probability of intensive care unit survival. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 851 patients were aged 61.2 (+/- 17.6, mean + SD) yrs with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 21.7 (+/- 8.6). Three hundred and four patients (35.7%) died in the intensive care unit, and 341 (40.1%) were assessed by a physician at least once to have a < 10% intensive care unit survival probability. Independent predictors of intensive care unit mortality were baseline APACHE II score (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.24, for a 5-point increase) and daily factors such as MODS (hazard ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-3.04, for a 5-point increase), use of inotropes or vasopressors (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.77), dialysis (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), patient preference to limit life support (hazard ratio, 10.22; 95% confidence interval, 7.38-14.16), and physician but not nurse prediction of < 10% survival. The impact of physician estimates of < 10% intensive care unit survival was greater for patients without vs. those with preferences to limit life support (p < .001) and for patients with less vs. more severe organ dysfunction (p < .001). Mechanical ventilation, inotropes or vasopressors, and dialysis were withdrawn more often when physicians predicted < 10% probability of intensive care unit survival (all ps < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician estimates of intensive care unit survival < 10% are associated with subsequent life support limitation and more powerfully predict intensive care unit mortality than illness severity, evolving or resolving organ dysfunction, and use of inotropes or vasopressors.

Influence of perceived functional and employment status on cardiopulmonary resuscitation directives.

BACKGROUND: Perceptions about functional and employment status before admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) may influence how patients and clinicians make decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between cardiopulmonary resuscitation directives established within 24 hours of admission to the ICU and clinical perceptions of premorbid functional and employment status. DESIGN: Prospective observational study in 15 university-affiliated centers in Canada, the United States, Australia, and Sweden. PATIENTS: A total of 1,008 ICU patients aged 18 years or older expected to stay in the ICU at least 72 hours. MEASUREMENTS: By using multinomial logistic regression, we examined the relationship between functional status and employment status perceived by the ICU team 1 month before ICU admission (the independent variables) and resuscitation status (the dependent variable). Each patient had either an explicit resuscitation directive (to resuscitate or not to resuscitate), or an implicit resuscitation directive to resuscitate. RESULTS: On average, patients were 61.7 years (+/-17.4 y) old with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 21.5 (+/-8.7); 846 (83.9%) were ventilated mechanically within 48 hours and 345 (34.2%) died in the ICU. Most patients (793, 78.7%) had no explicit resuscitation directive; 98 (9.7%) had an explicit plan to resuscitate, whereas 117 (11.6%) had an explicit plan of do-not-resuscitate. Of 1,008 patients, 98 (9.7%) were severely functionally limited, 217 (21.5%) were somewhat limited, 628 (62.3%) were totally independent, and 65 (6.4%) had unknown functional status 1 month before ICU admission. Severe functional status impairment was associated moderately with an explicit plan to resuscitate (odds ratio, 2.2 relative to no explicit directive) and associated strongly with an explicit do-not-resuscitate plan (odds ratio, 6.2 relative to no explicit directive, P value on the difference =.011). This relationship was not influenced by age, sex, APACHE II score, medical or surgical status, admission diagnosis, employment status, or city. However, severe functional status was associated strongly and significantly with an explicit do-not-resuscitate directive among those who could not participate in decision making (odds ratio, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.5-15.0), and more weakly associated in those who could participate (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-8.6). Being unemployed was associated with an increased odds of an explicit resuscitation directive versus no explicit directive (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-13.4). CONCLUSIONS: Functional status impairment perceived by the ICU team is associated clearly with do-not-resuscitate directives in patients unable to participate in decision making. However, the association appears much weaker in patients able to participate in decision making. PATIENTS' perceived employment status also may influence resuscitation decisions. Our results emphasize the challenges of ensuring that crucial resuscitation decisions are not affected adversely by patients' inability to participate in decisions, and by their functional and employment status.

Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in anticipation of death in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients who are receiving mechanical ventilation, the factors associated with physicians' decisions to withdraw ventilation in anticipation of death are unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the clinical determinants that were associated with the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We studied adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation in 15 intensive care units, recording base-line physiological characteristics, daily Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores, the patient's decision-making ability, the type of life support administered, the use of do-not-resuscitate orders, the physician's prediction of the patient's status, and the physician's perceptions of the patient's preferences about the use of life support. We examined the relation between these factors and withdrawal of mechanical ventilation, using Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 851 patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation, 539 (63.3 percent) were successfully weaned, 146 (17.2 percent) died while receiving mechanical ventilation, and 166 (19.5 percent) had mechanical ventilation withdrawn. The need for inotropes or vasopressors was associated with withdrawal of the ventilator (hazard ratio, 1.78; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.20 to 2.66; P=0.004), as were the physician's prediction that the patient's likelihood of survival in the intensive care unit was less than 10 percent (hazard ratio, 3.49; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.39 to 8.79; P=0.002), the physician's prediction that future cognitive function would be severely impaired (hazard ratio, 2.51; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.28 to 4.94; P=0.04), and the physician's perception that the patient did not want life support used (hazard ratio, 4.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.57 to 6.81; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rather than age or the severity of the illness and organ dysfunction, the strongest determinants of the withdrawal of ventilation in critically ill patients were the physician's perception that the patient preferred not to use life support, the physician's predictions of a low likelihood of survival in the intensive care unit and a high likelihood of poor cognitive function, and the use of inotropes or vasopressors.

End-of-life decisions in Swedish ICUs. How do physicians from the admitting department reason?

OBJECTIVE: To study how physicians from the admitting department reason during the decision-making process to forego life-sustaining treatment of patients in intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Qualitative interview that applies a phenomenological approach. SETTING: Two ICUs at one secondary and one tertiary referral hospital in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen admitting-department physicians who have participated in decisions to forego life-sustaining treatment. RESULTS: The decision-making process as it appeared from the physicians' experiences was complex, and different approaches to the process were observed. A pattern of five phases in the process emerged in the interviews. The physicians described the process principally as a medical one, with few ethical reflections. Decision-making was mostly done in collaboration with other physicians. Patients, family and nurses did not seem to play a significant role in the process. CONCLUSION: This study describes how physicians reasoned when confronted with real patient situations in which decisions to forego life-sustaining treatment were mainly based on medical--not ethical--considerations.

End-of-life practices in European intensive care units: the Ethicus Study.

CONTEXT: While the adoption of practice guidelines is standardizing many aspects of patient care, ethical dilemmas are occurring because of forgoing life-sustaining therapies in intensive care and are dealt with in diverse ways between different countries and cultures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and types of actual end-of-life practices in European intensive care units (ICUs) and to analyze the similarities and differences. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective, observational study of European ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of therapy. INTERVENTION: Prospectively defined end-of-life practices in 37 ICUs in 17 European countries were studied from January 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison and analysis of the frequencies and patterns of end-of-life care by geographic regions and different patients and professionals. RESULTS: Of 31 417 patients admitted to ICUs, 4248 patients (13.5%) died or had a limitation of life-sustaining therapy. Of these, 3086 patients (72.6%) had limitations of treatments (10% of admissions). Substantial intercountry variability was found in the limitations and the manner of dying: unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 20% (range, 5%-48%), brain death in 8% (range, 0%-15%), withholding therapy in 38% (range, 16%-70%), withdrawing therapy in 33% (range, 5%-69%), and active shortening of the dying process in 2% (range, 0%-19%). Shortening of the dying process was reported in 7 countries. Doses of opioids and benzodiazepines reported for shortening of the dying process were in the same range as those used for symptom relief in previous studies. Limitation of therapy vs continuation of life-sustaining therapy was associated with patient age, acute and chronic diagnoses, number of days in ICU, region, and religion (P<.001). CONCLUSION: The limiting of life-sustaining treatment in European ICUs is common and variable. Limitations were associated with patient age, diagnoses, ICU stay, and geographic and religious factors. Although shortening of the dying process is rare, clarity between withdrawing therapies and shortening of the dying process and between therapies intended to relieve pain and suffering and those intended to shorten the dying process may be lacking.