Mapping the Informed Consent Process for Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Ethical, practical, and medical challenges affect decisions about left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The informed consent document (IC-Doc) is integral to the decision-making process and structures informed consent conversations. The objective of this study was to analyze IC-Docs to identify the information patients and their families receive about LVAD implantation to create a model IC-Doc. We requested IC-Doc for LVAD implantation from LVAD programs in the United States. We analyzed them in three areas: medical and technical content, patient knowledge gaps, and syntax. Nineteen IC-Docs representing all United Network of Organ Sharing regions were included. Seventeen (89.5%) mentioned the indications for LVAD implantation (bridge to transplant or destination therapy), and six indicated which category applied to the patient. Palliative care was mentioned as an alternative in nine (47.4%); no IC-Doc discussed nonsurgical palliative care. Eight forms (42.1%) specifically mentioned turning off the LVAD. Eighteen forms mention general bleeding, and four referred to long-term gastrointestinal bleeding. Two IC-Docs addressed driveline infections. One form was written at an 8th grade reading level. There is wide variation in LVAD IC-Docs and omission of some benefits and risks. We have written an IC-Doc that meets criteria for disclosure, fills many knowledge gaps, and has an acceptable readability score.

Development and validation of a patient-centered knowledge scale for left ventricular assist device placement.

BACKGROUND: A central tenet of patient-centered health care advocated by the Institute of Medicine and the American Medical Association is to enhance informed decision-making in a way that incorporates patient values, knowledge and beliefs. Achievement of this goal is constrained by a lack of validated measures of patients' knowledge needs. METHODS: In this study we present a comprehensive and valid methodology for developing a clinically informed and patient-centered measure of knowledge about left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy to facilitate discussion and measure candidate understanding of treatment options. Using structured interviews with patients, caregivers, candidates for LVAD treatment (New York Heart Association Class III and IV) and expert clinicians (n = 71), we identified top patient decisional needs and perspectives on essential knowledge needs for informed decision-making. From this list, we generated 20 knowledge scale question items to refine in cognitive interviews (n = 5) with patients and patient consultants. RESULTS: Good internal consistency and reliability of the knowledge scale (Cronbach's α = 0.81) was seen in 30 LVAD patients and candidates. Knowledge was higher among patients currently with LVADs than candidates, regardless of receiving standard education (with education: 69.9 vs 50.1, adjusted p = 0.02; without education: 69.9 vs 37.6, adjusted p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The LVAD knowledge scale may be useful in clinical settings to identify gaps in knowledge among patient candidates considering LVAD treatment, and to better tailor education and discussion with patients and their caregivers, and to enhance informed decision-making before treatment decisions are made.

Barriers and Facilitators to Initiating and Completing Time-Limited Trials in Critical Care.

OBJECTIVES: A time-limited trial is an agreement between clinicians and patients or surrogate decision makers to use medical therapies over a defined period of time to see if the patient improves or deteriorates according to agreed-upon clinical milestones. Although time-limited trials are broadly advocated, there is little empirical evidence of the benefits and risks of time-limited trials, when they are initiated, when and why they succeed or fail, and what facilitates completion of them. Our study objectives were to 1) identify the purposes for which clinicians use time-limited trials and 2) identify barriers and facilitators to initiating and completing time-limited trials. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews: We analyzed interviews using qualitative description with constant comparative techniques. SETTING: Nine hundred-bed, academic, tertiary hospital in Houston, Texas. Interviewees were from open medical, surgical, neurosurgical, and cardiovascular ICUs. SUBJECTS: Thirty healthcare professionals were interviewed (nine surgeons, 16 intensivists, three nurse practitioners, and two "other" clinicians). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Interviewees reported initiating time-limited trials for three different purposes: to prepare surrogates and clinicians for discussion and possible shifts toward comfort-care only therapies, build consensus, and refine prognostic information. The main barriers to initiating time-limited trials involve clinicians' or surrogate decision makers' disagreement on setting a time limit. Barriers to completing time-limited trials include 1) requesting more time; 2) communication breakdowns because of rotating call schedules; and 3) changes in clinical course. Finally, facilitators to completing time-limited trials include 1) having defined goals about what could be achieved during an ICU stay, either framed in narrow, numeric terms or broad goals focusing on achievable activities of daily living; 2) applying time-limited trials in certain types of cases; and 3) taking ownership to ensure completion of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of barriers and facilitators to initiating and completing time-limited trials is an essential first step toward appropriate utilization of time-limited trials in the ICUs, as well as developing educational or communication interventions with clinicians to facilitate time-limited trial use. We provide practical suggestions on patient populations in whom time-limited trials may be successful, the setting, and clinicians likely to benefit from educational interventions, allowing clinicians to have a fuller sense of when and how to use time-limited trials.

Content Analysis of Social Media Related to Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

BACKGROUND: Social media have the potential to offer important benefits for patient education, support, and shared decision making. Despite the proliferation of social media use during the past decade, little is known about the scope and quality of available information, or the purposes that social media sites serve for patient decisional and support needs. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a mixed method study, including content analysis of social media and principal components analysis analysis of data sites discussing left ventricular assist device treatment for heart failure. This study explored aspects of interactivity, user-friendliness, appeal, medium, purpose, audience, and accuracy of information. Higher levels of interactivity (eg, posting comments) seem to enhance the appeal and usability of available information but also introduce greater potential for inaccuracy and inconsistency. The current lack of oversight into the content and quality of available information constitute a challenge for the reliable use of social media as forums for information-seeking and social network-based support. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that social media outlets constitute a promising source of informational and psychosocial support for patients, caregivers, and candidates, and if used in conjunction with patient-provider dialog, can contribute to informed decision making by facilitating reflection and discussion of personal concerns, values, and informational needs.

Reasons Why Eligible Candidates Decline Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement.

BACKGROUND: A greater understanding of how beliefs and perceptions inform LVAD placement refusals can help ensure that standards for informed decision making are met. We report on the factors that influence refusal and what accounts for changes in decliners' decision-making process when, and if, that occurs. METHOD AND RESULTS: We identified candidates (8 bridge to transplant; 6 destination therapy, 7 without designation) who declined LVAD placement (n = 21), 11 of whom were identified prospectively from February 2014 to March 2015, and 10 of whom were identified retrospectively with the use of our program database. Of these 21 decliners, 11 candidates persistently declined LVAD placement, with a median time of 175 days elapsing between time of LVAD offer and March 4, 2015. Ten candidates declined for an average of 224 days before agreeing to LVAD placement. From March 2014 to March 2015, we conducted structured interviews with LVAD decliners. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed quantitatively with the use of Atlas.ti. The findings reflect that refusal can evolve over time. Decliners report that their initial refusals were made reflexively, but the 10 decliners who ultimately opted for LVAD placement changed their decisions as symptoms worsened. Decliners have concerns about the impacts of LVAD treatment on mobility, and they distrust LVAD technology. Some decliners believe LVAD placement would affect their ability to receive a transplant. Finally, decliners believe that they are not sick enough for LVAD placement when they are stabilized with medical management. CONCLUSIONS: Decliners' perspectives are integral for improving informed consent and refusal processes. Our analysis revealed decliners' decision-making processes and factors influencing their decisions. We provide several clinically based practical recommendations based on our findings.

Assessment of patients' and caregivers' informational and decisional needs for left ventricular assist device placement: Implications for informed consent and shared decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Several organizations have underscored the crucial need for patient-centered decision tools to enhance shared decision-making in advanced heart failure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the decision-making process and informational and decisional needs of patients and their caregivers regarding left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. METHODS: In-depth, structured interviews with LVAD patients, candidates and caregivers (spouse, family members) (n = 45) were conducted. We also administered a Decisional Regret Scale. RESULTS: Participants reported LVAD decision-making to be quick and reflexive (n = 30), and deferred heavily to clinicians (n = 22). They did not perceive themselves as having a real choice (n = 28). The 2 most prevalent informational domains that participants identified were lifestyle issues (23 items), followed by technical (drive-line, battery) issues (14 items). Participants easily and clearly identified their values: life extension; family; and mobility. Participants reported the need to meet other patients and caregivers before device placement (n = 31), and to have an involved caregiver (n = 28) to synthesize information. Some participants demonstrated a lack of clarity regarding transplant probability: 9 of 15 patients described themselves as on a transplant trajectory, yet 7 of these were destination therapy patients. Finally, we found that decisional regret scores were low (1.307). CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent and shared-decision making should: (a) help patients offered highly invasive technologies for life-threatening disease get past the initial "anything to avoid thinking about death" reaction and make a more informed decision; (b) clarify transplant status; and (c) focus on lifestyle and technical issues, as patients have the most informational needs in these domains.

Ventricular assist devices as destination therapy: psychosocial and ethical implications.

One of the candidate evaluation challenges is determining when and how psychosocial domains influence short- and long-term destination therapy ventricular assist device (DT-VAD) outcomes. There are very few DT-VAD studies and no validated instruments to identify psychosocial risk factors. General practice is to borrow from the transplant literature, which may not be applicable to this unique device application. We question the relevance of using transplant psychosocial evaluation for patients who are candidates for DT-VAD only, particularly because these patients require a certain level of cognitive, psychological, and behavioral functioning to ensure proper long-term self-care with the VAD. We may be missing important psychological characteristics in our pre-evaluations by "borrowing" from the transplant literature, thereby underplaying significant factors that are especially relevant for DT-VAD candidates. Conversely, we may be screening out candidates who may benefit greatly from DT-VAD by using transplant criteria as part of the screening process. We use a case study to illustrate some of the challenges of weighing psychosocial risk factors in the DT-VAD population and to emphasize the need for developing distinct psychosocial assessment criteria for DT-VAD patients.

Ventricular assist devices: a review of psychosocial risk factors and their impact on outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial contraindications for ventricular assist devices (VADs) remain particularly nebulous and are driven by institution-specific practices. Our multi-institutional, multidisciplinary workgroup conducted a review with the goal of addressing the following research question: How are preoperative psychosocial domains predictive of or associated with postoperative VAD-related outcomes? Answers to this question could contribute to the development of treatment-specific (contra) indications for patients under consideration for mechanical devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 5 studies that examined psychosocial factors and their relationship to postoperative VAD-related outcomes. Our results suggest that 3 psychosocial variables are possibly associated with VAD-related outcomes: depression, functional status, and self-care. Of the few studies that exist, the generalizability of findings is constrained by a lack of methodologic rigor, inconsistent terminology, and a lack of conceptual clarity. CONCLUSIONS: This review should serve as a call for research. Efforts to minimize psychosocial risk before device placement can only be successful insofar as VAD programs can clearly identify who is at risk for suboptimal outcomes.