Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent: Talking with Surgical Patients.

For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as "informed consent." Yet the core framework-understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives-fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will "fix" the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called "better conversations." Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.

Optimal management of radiation pneumonitis: Findings of an international Delphi consensus study.

PURPOSE: Radiation pneumonitis (RP) is a dose-limiting toxicity for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for lung cancer, however, the optimal practice for diagnosis, management, and follow-up for RP remains unclear. We thus sought to establish expert consensus recommendations through a Delphi Consensus study. METHODS: In Round 1, open questions were distributed to 31 expert clinicians treating thoracic malignancies. In Round 2, participants rated agreement/disagreement with statements derived from Round 1 answers using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75 % agreement. Statements that did not achieve consensus were modified and re-tested in Round 3. RESULTS: Response rate was 74 % in Round 1 (n = 23/31; 17 oncologists, 6 pulmonologists); 82 % in Round 2 (n = 19/23; 15 oncologists, 4 pulmonologists); and 100 % in Round 3 (n = 19/19). Thirty-nine of 65 Round 2 statements achieved consensus; a further 10 of 26 statements achieved consensus in Round 3. In Round 2, there was agreement that risk stratification/mitigation includes patient factors; optimal treatment planning; the basis for diagnosis of RP; and that oncologists and pulmonologists should be involved in treatment. For uncomplicated radiation pneumonitis, an equivalent to 60 mg oral prednisone per day, with consideration of gastroprotection, is a typical initial regimen. However, in this study, no consensus was achieved for dosing recommendation. Initial steroid dose should be administered for a duration of 2 weeks, followed by a gradual, weekly taper (equivalent to 10 mg prednisone decrease per week). For severe pneumonitis, IV methylprednisolone is recommended for 3 days prior to initiating oral corticosteroids. Final consensus statements included that the treatment of RP should be multidisciplinary, the uncertainty of whether pneumonitis is drug versus radiation-induced, and the importance risk stratification, especially in the scenario of interstitial lung disease. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study achieved consensus recommendations and provides practical guidance on diagnosis and management of RP.

Language in Bioethics: Beyond the Representational View.

Though assumptions about language underlie all bioethical work, the field has rarely partaken of theories of language. This article encourages a more linguistically engaged bioethics. We describe the tacit conception of language that is frequently upheld in bioethics-what we call the representational view, which sees language essentially as a means of description. We examine how this view has routed the field's theories and interventions down certain paths. We present an alternative model of language-the pragmatic view-and explore how it expands and clarifies traditional bioethical concerns. To lend concreteness, we apply the pragmatic view to a pervasive concept in bioethics and adjacent fields: decision making. We suggest that problems of the decision-making approach to bioethical issues are grounded in adherence to the representational view. Drawing on empirical work in surgery and critical care, we show how the pragmatic view productively reframes bioethical questions about how medical treatments are pursued.

Mapping the process of ICU care delivery to improve treatment decisions in acute respiratory failure.

Evidence suggests system-level norms and care processes influence individual patients' medical decisions, including end-of-life decisions for patients with critical illnesses like acute respiratory failure. Yet, little is known about how these processes unfold over the course of a patient's critical illness in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our objective was to map current-state ICU care delivery processes for patients with acute respiratory failure and to identify opportunities to improve the process. We conducted a process mapping study at two academic medical centers, using focus groups and semi-structured interviews. The 70 participants represented 17 distinct roles in ICU care, including interprofessional medical ICU and palliative care clinicians, surrogate decision makers, and patient survivors. Participants refined and endorsed a process map of current-state care delivery for all patients admitted to the ICU with acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. The process contains four critical periods for active deliberation about the use of life-sustaining treatments. However, active deliberation steps are inconsistently performed and frequently disrupted, leading to prolongation of life-sustaining treatment by default, without consideration of patients' individual goals and priorities. Interventions to standardize active deliberation in the ICU may improve treatment decisions for ICU patients with acute respiratory failure.

Barriers and Facilitators to End-of-Life Care Delivery in ICUs: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand frontline ICU clinician's perceptions of end-of-life care delivery in the ICU. DESIGN: Qualitative observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: Seven ICUs across three hospitals in an integrated academic health system. SUBJECTS: ICU clinicians (physicians [critical care, palliative care], advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, chaplains). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 27 semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The research team reviewed all transcripts inductively to develop a codebook. Thematic analysis was conducted through coding, category formulation, and sorting for data reduction to identify central themes. Deductive reasoning facilitated data category formulation and thematic structuring anchored on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model identified that work systems (people, environment, tools, tasks) lead to processes and outcomes. Four themes were barriers or facilitators to end-of-life care. First, work system barriers delayed end-of-life care communication among clinicians as well as between clinicians and families. For example, over-reliance on palliative care people in handling end-of-life discussions prevented timely end-of-life care discussions with families. Second, clinician-level variability existed in end-of-life communication tasks. For example, end-of-life care discussions varied greatly in process and outcomes depending on the clinician leading the conversation. Third, clinician-family-patient priorities or treatment goals were misaligned. Conversely, regular discussion and joint decisions facilitated higher familial confidence in end-of-life care delivery process. These detailed discussions between care teams aligned priorities and led to fewer situations where patients/families received conflicting information. Fourth, clinician moral distress occurred from providing nonbeneficial care. Interviewees reported standardized end-of-life care discussion process incorporated by the people in the work system including patient, family, and clinicians were foundational to delivering end-of-life care that reduced both patient and family suffering, as well as clinician moral distress. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized work system communication tasks may improve end-of life discussion processes between clinicians and families.

"The Equipoise Ruler:" A National Survey on Surgeon Judgment about the Value of Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand professional norms regarding the value of surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Agreed-upon professional norms may improve surgical decision making by contextualizing the nature of surgical treatment for patients. However, the extent to which these norms exist among surgeons practicing in the US is not known. METHODS: We administered a survey with 30 exemplar cases asking surgeons to use their best judgement to place each case on a scale ranging from "Definitely would do this surgery" to "Definitely would not do this surgery." We then asked surgeons to repeat their assessments after providing responses from the first survey. We interviewed respondents to characterize their rationale. RESULTS: We received 580 responses, a response rate of 28.5%. For 19 of 30 cases there was consensus (≥60% agreement) about the value of surgery (range 63% - 99%). There was little within-case variation when the mode was for surgery and more variation when the mode was against surgery or equipoise. Exposure to peer response increased the number of cases with consensus. Women were more likely to endorse a non-operative approach when treatment had high mortality. Specialists were less likely to operate for salvage procedures. Surgeons noted their clinical practice was to withhold judgment and let patients decide despite their assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Professional judgment about the value of surgery exists along a continuum. While there is less variation in judgment for cases that are highly beneficial, consensus can be improved by exposure to the assessments of peers.

Defining the Time-limited Trial for Patients with Critical Illness: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

In critical care, the specific, structured approach to patient care known as a "time-limited trial" has been promoted in the literature to help patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians navigate consequential decisions about life-sustaining therapy in the face of uncertainty. Despite promotion of the time-limited trial approach, a lack of consensus about its definition and essential elements prevents optimal clinical use and rigorous evaluation of its impact. The objectives of this American Thoracic Society Workshop Committee were to establish a consensus definition of a time-limited trial in critical care, identify the essential elements for conducting a time-limited trial, and prioritize directions for future work. We achieved these objectives through a structured search of the literature, a modified Delphi process with 100 interdisciplinary and interprofessional stakeholders, and iterative committee discussions. We conclude that a time-limited trial for patients with critical illness is a collaborative plan among clinicians and a patient and/or their surrogate decision makers to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined duration, after which the patient's response to therapy informs the decision to continue care directed toward recovery, transition to care focused exclusively on comfort, or extend the trial's duration. The plan's 16 essential elements follow four sequential phases: consider, plan, support, and reassess. We acknowledge considerable gaps in evidence about the impact of time-limited trials and highlight a concern that if inadequately implemented, time-limited trials may perpetuate unintended harm. Future work is needed to better implement this defined, specific approach to care in practice through a person-centered equity lens and to evaluate its impact on patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

Urea cycle disorders in critically Ill adults.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Urea cycle disorders (UCDs) cause elevations in ammonia which, when severe, cause irreversible neurologic injury. Most patients with UCDs are diagnosed as neonates, though mild UCDs can present later - even into adulthood - during windows of high physiologic stress, like critical illness. It is crucial for clinicians to understand when to screen for UCDs and appreciate how to manage these disorders in order to prevent devastating neurologic injury or death. RECENT FINDINGS: Hyperammonemia, particularly if severe, causes time- and concentration-dependent neurologic injury. Mild UCDs presenting in adulthood are increasingly recognized, so broader screening in adults is recommended. For patients with UCDs, a comprehensive, multitiered approach to management is needed to prevent progression and irreversible injury. Earlier exogenous clearance is increasingly recognized as an important complement to other therapies. SUMMARY: UCDs alter the core pathway for ammonia metabolism. Screening for mild UCDs in adults with unexplained neurologic symptoms can direct care and prevent deterioration. Management of UCDs emphasizes decreasing ongoing ammonia production, avoiding catabolism, and supporting endogenous and exogenous ammonia clearance. Core neuroprotective and supportive critical care supplements this focused therapy.

Time-Limited Trials for Patients With Critical Illness: A Review of the Literature.

TOPIC IMPORTANCE: Since the 1990s, time-limited trials have been described as an approach to navigate uncertain benefits and limits of life-sustaining therapies in patients with critical illness. In this review, we aim to synthesize the evidence on time-limited trials in critical care, establish what is known, and highlight important knowledge gaps. REVIEW FINDINGS: We identified 18 empirical studies and 15 ethical analyses about time-limited trials in patients with critical illness. Observational studies suggest time-limited trials are part of current practice in ICUs in the United States, but their use varies according to unit and physician factors. Some ICU physicians are familiar with, endorse, and have participated in time-limited trials, and some older adults appear to favor time-limited trial strategies over indefinite life-sustaining therapy or care immediately focused on comfort. When time-limited trials are used, they are often implemented incompletely and challenged by systematic barriers (eg, continually rotating ICU staff). Predictive modeling studies support prevailing clinical wisdom that prognostic uncertainty decreases over time in the ICU for some patients. One study prospectively comparing usual ICU care with an intervention designed to support time-limited trials yielded promising preliminary results. Ethical analyses describe time-limited trials as a pragmatic approach within the longstanding discussion about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapies. SUMMARY: Time-limited trials are endorsed by physicians, align with the priorities of some older adults, and are part of current practice. Substantial efforts are needed to test their impact on patient-centered outcomes, improve their implementation, and maximize their potential benefit.

Identifying Patterns of Medical Intervention in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Observational Study.

IMPORTANCE: Characterizing medical interventions delivered to ICU patients over time and their relationship to outcomes can help set expectations and inform decisions made by patients, clinicians, and health systems. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether distinct and clinically relevant pathways of medical intervention can be identified among adult ICU patients with acute respiratory failure. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective observational study using all-payer administrative claims data from 2012 to 2014. Patients were identified from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases from Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patterns of cumulative medical intervention delivery, over time, using temporal k-means clustering of interventions delivered up to hospital days 0, 5, 10, 20, and up to discharge. RESULTS: A total of 12,175 admissions were identified and divided into training (75%; n = 9,130) and validation sets (25%; n = 3,045). Without applying a priori classification and using only medical interventions to cluster, we identified three distinct pathways of intervention accounting for 93.5% of training set admissions. We found 45.9% of admissions followed a "cardiac" intervention pathway (e.g., cardiac catheterization, cardioversion); 36.7% followed a "general" pathway (e.g., diagnostic interventions); and 17.4% followed a "prolonged" pathway (e.g., tracheostomy, gastrostomy). Prolonged pathway admissions had longer median hospital length of stay (13 d; interquartile range [IQR], 7.5-18.5 d) compared with cardiac (5; IQR, 2.5-7.5) and general (5; IQR, 3-7). In-hospital death occurred in 24.6% of prolonged pathway admissions compared with 17.9% of cardiac and 6.9% of general. Findings were confirmed in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most ICU admissions for acute respiratory failure follow one of three clinically relevant pathways of medical intervention which are associated with hospitalization outcomes. This study helps define the longitudinal nature of critical care delivery, which can inform efforts to predict patient outcomes, communicate with patients and their families, and organize critical care resources.

The Duality of "Goals of Care" Language: A Qualitative Focus Group Study With Frontline Clinicians.

CONTEXT: The phrase "goals of care" (GOC) is common in serious illness care, yet it lacks clarity and consistency. Understanding how GOC is used across healthcare contexts is an opportunity to identify and mitigate root causes of serious illness miscommunication. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize frontline palliative and critical care clinicians' understanding and use of the phrase GOC in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a secondary qualitative thematic analysis of focus group transcripts (n = 10), gathered as part of a parent study of care delivery for patients with respiratory failure. Participants (n = 59) were members of the palliative and critical care interprofessional teams at two academic medical centers. RESULTS: Clinicians primarily use GOC as a shorthand signal among team members to indicate a patient is nearing the end of life. This signal can also indicate conflict with patients and families when clinicians' expectations-typically an expected "transition" toward a different type of care-are not met. Clinicians distinguish their clinical use of GOC from an "ideal" meaning of the phrase, which is broader than end of life and focused on patients' values. Palliative care specialists encourage other clinicians to shift toward the "ideal" GOC concept in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Frontline palliative and critical care clinicians understand a duality in GOC, as an idealized concept and as an expeditious signal for clinical care. Our findings suggest ambiguous phrases like GOC persist because of unmet needs for better ways to discuss and address diverse and complex priorities for patients with serious illness.

Innovations in Surgical Communication 2-Focus on the Goals of Surgery.

This Viewpoint discusses communicating goals of surgeries with patients.

Reconsidering the Language of Serious Illness.

This Viewpoint expresses how use of certain language complicates decision-making for critically ill patients, and it highlights alternative phrasing for effective communication.

An Adjudication Protocol for Severe Pneumonia.

Background: Clinical end points that constitute successful treatment in severe pneumonia are difficult to ascertain and vulnerable to bias. The utility of a protocolized adjudication procedure to determine meaningful end points in severe pneumonia has not been well described. Methods: This was a single-center prospective cohort study of patients with severe pneumonia admitted to the medical intensive care unit. The objective was to develop an adjudication protocol for severe bacterial and/or viral pneumonia. Each episode of pneumonia was independently reviewed by 2 pulmonary and critical care physicians. If a discrepancy occurred between the 2 adjudicators, a third adjudicator reviewed the case. If a discrepancy remained after all 3 adjudications, consensus was achieved through committee review. Results: Evaluation of 784 pneumonia episodes during 593 hospitalizations achieved only 48.1% interobserver agreement between the first 2 adjudicators and 78.8% when agreement was defined as concordance between 2 of 3 adjudicators. Multiple episodes of pneumonia and presence of bacterial/viral coinfection in the initial pneumonia episode were associated with lower interobserver agreement. For an initial episode of bacterial pneumonia, patients with an adjudicated day 7-8 clinical impression of cure (compared with alternative impressions) were more likely to be discharged alive (odds ratio, 6.3; 95% CI, 3.5-11.6). Conclusions: A comprehensive adjudication protocol to identify clinical end points in severe pneumonia resulted in only moderate interobserver agreement. An adjudicated end point of clinical cure by day 7-8 was associated with more favorable hospital discharge dispositions, suggesting that clinical cure by day 7-8 may be a valid end point to use in adjudication protocols.

Using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score to assess mortality risk in older medical patients admitted to the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information at the time of hospital discharge can help guide goals-of-care discussions for future care. We sought to assess the association between the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), which may highlight patients' risk of adverse outcomes at the time of hospital discharge, and in-hospital death among patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 12 months of a previous hospital discharge. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study that included patients aged 75 years or older admitted at least twice over a 12-month period to the general medicine service at 7 academic centres and large community-based teaching hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, from Apr. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2019. The HFRS (categorized as low, moderate or high frailty risk) was calculated at the time of discharge from the first hospital admission. Outcomes included ICU admission and death during the second hospital admission. RESULTS: The cohort included 22 178 patients, of whom 1767 (8.0%) were categorized as having high frailty risk, 9464 (42.7%) as having moderate frailty risk, and 10 947 (49.4%) as having low frailty risk. One hundred patients (5.7%) with high frailty risk were admitted to the ICU, compared to 566 (6.0%) of those with moderate risk and 790 (7.2%) of those with low risk. After adjustment for age, sex, hospital, day of admission, time of admission and Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score, the odds of ICU admission were not significantly different for patients with high (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.23) or moderate (adjusted OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09) frailty risk compared to those with low frailty risk. Among patients admitted to the ICU, 75 (75.0%) of those with high frailty risk died, compared to 317 (56.0%) of those with moderate risk and 416 (52.7%) of those with low risk. After multivariable adjustment, the risk of death after ICU admission was higher for patients with high frailty risk than for those with low frailty risk (adjusted OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.77 to 4.77). INTERPRETATION: Among patients readmitted to hospital within 12 months, patients with high frailty risk were similarly likely as those with lower frailty risk to be admitted to the ICU but were more likely to die if admitted to ICU. The HFRS at hospital discharge can inform prognosis, which can help guide discussions for preferences for ICU care during future hospital stays.

Machine learning links unresolving secondary pneumonia to mortality in patients with severe pneumonia, including COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDDespite guidelines promoting the prevention and aggressive treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), the importance of VAP as a driver of outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, including patients with severe COVID-19, remains unclear. We aimed to determine the contribution of unsuccessful treatment of VAP to mortality for patients with severe pneumonia.METHODSWe performed a single-center, prospective cohort study of 585 mechanically ventilated patients with severe pneumonia and respiratory failure, 190 of whom had COVID-19, who underwent at least 1 bronchoalveolar lavage. A panel of intensive care unit (ICU) physicians adjudicated the pneumonia episodes and endpoints on the basis of clinical and microbiological data. Given the relatively long ICU length of stay (LOS) among patients with COVID-19, we developed a machine-learning approach called CarpeDiem, which grouped similar ICU patient-days into clinical states based on electronic health record data.RESULTSCarpeDiem revealed that the long ICU LOS among patients with COVID-19 was attributable to long stays in clinical states characterized primarily by respiratory failure. While VAP was not associated with mortality overall, the mortality rate was higher for patients with 1 episode of unsuccessfully treated VAP compared with those with successfully treated VAP (76.4% versus 17.6%, P < 0.001). For all patients, including those with COVID-19, CarpeDiem demonstrated that unresolving VAP was associated with a transitions to clinical states associated with higher mortality.CONCLUSIONSUnsuccessful treatment of VAP is associated with higher mortality. The relatively long LOS for patients with COVID-19 was primarily due to prolonged respiratory failure, placing them at higher risk of VAP.FUNDINGNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), NIH grant U19AI135964; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH grants R01HL147575, R01HL149883, R01HL153122, R01HL153312, R01HL154686, R01HL158139, P01HL071643, and P01HL154998; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH training grants T32HL076139 and F32HL162377; National Institute on Aging (NIA), NIH grants K99AG068544, R21AG075423, and P01AG049665; National Library of Medicine (NLM), NIH grant R01LM013337; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), NIH grant U01TR003528; Veterans Affairs grant I01CX001777; Chicago Biomedical Consortium grant; Northwestern University Dixon Translational Science Award; Simpson Querrey Lung Institute for Translational Science (SQLIFTS); Canning Thoracic Institute of Northwestern Medicine.

Impact of Interprofessional Teamwork on Aligning Intensive Care Unit Care with Patient Goals: A Qualitative Study of Transactive Memory Systems.

Rationale: Although aligning care with patient goals is fundamental to critical care, this process is often delayed and leads to conflict among patients, families, and intensive care unit (ICU) teams. Interprofessional collaboration within ICU teams is an opportunity to improve goal-aligned care, yet this collaboration is poorly understood. A better understanding of how ICU team members work together to provide goal-aligned care may identify new strategies for improvement. Objectives: Transactive memory systems is a theory of group mind that explains how high-performing teams use a shared memory and collective cognition. We applied this theory to characterize the process of interprofessional collaboration within ICU teams and its relationship with goal-aligned care. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of focus group (n = 10) and semistructured interview (n = 8) transcripts, gathered during a parent study at two academic medical centers on the process of ICU care delivery in acute respiratory failure. Participants (N = 70) included interprofessional ICU and palliative care team members, surrogates, and patient survivors. We used directed content analysis, applying transactive memory systems theory and its major components (specialization, coordination, credibility) to examine ICU team collaboration. Results: Participants described each ICU profession as having a specialized role in aligning care with patient goals. Different professions have different opportunities to gather knowledge about patient goals and priorities, which results in dispersion of this knowledge among different team members. To share and use this dispersed knowledge, ICU teams rely on an informal coordination process and "side conversations." This process is a workaround for formal channels (e.g., health records, interprofessional rounds) that do not adequately convey knowledge about patient goals. This informal process does not occur if team members are discouraged from asserting their knowledge because of hierarchy or lack of psychological safety. Conversely, coordination succeeds when team members recognize each other as credible sources of valued knowledge. Conclusions: We found that ICU team members work together to align care with patient goals and priorities, using transactive memory systems. The successful function of these systems can be disrupted or promoted by ICU organizational and cultural factors, which are potential targets for efforts to increase goal-aligned care.

Patient-Centered and Family-Centered Care in the Intensive Care Unit.

Patient-centered and family-centered care (PFCC) is widely recognized as integral to high-quality health-care delivery. The highly technical nature of critical care puts patients and families at risk of dehumanization and renders the delivery of PFCC in the intensive care unit (ICU) challenging. In this article, we discuss the history and terminology of PFCC, describe interventions to promote PFCC, highlight limitations to the current model, and offer future directions to optimize PFCC in the ICU.