Medical Decision-Making and Bereavement Experiences After Cardiac Arrest: Qualitative Insights From Surrogates.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Christine E DeForge, Arlene Smaldone, Sachin Agarwal, Maureen George
{"title":"Medical Decision-Making and Bereavement Experiences After Cardiac Arrest: Qualitative Insights From Surrogates.","authors":"Christine E DeForge, Arlene Smaldone, Sachin Agarwal, Maureen George","doi":"10.4037/ajcc2024211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surrogates of incapacitated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) face decisions related to life-sustaining treatments. Decisional conflict is understudied.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare experiences of ICU surrogates by reported level of decisional conflict related to treatment decisions after a patient's cardiac arrest preceding death.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Convergent mixed methods were used. Bereaved surrogates recruited from a single northeastern US academic medical center completed surveys including the low-literacy Decisional Conflict Scale (moderate-to-high cut point >25) and individual interviews about 1 month after the patient's death. Interview data were analyzed by directed and conventional content analysis. Surrogates were stratified by median total survey score, and interview findings were compared by decisional conflict level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 16 surrogates, 7 reported some decisional conflict (median survey score, 0; range, 0-25). About two-thirds decided to withdraw treatments. Three themes emerged from interviews: 2 reflecting decision-making experiences (\"the ultimate act\"; \"the legacy of clinician communication\") and 1 reflecting bereavement experiences (\"I wish there was a handbook\"). Surrogates reporting decisional conflict included those who first pursued but later withdrew treatments after a patient's in-hospital cardiac arrest. Surrogates with decisional conflict described suboptimal support, poor medical understanding, and lack of clarity about patients' treatment preferences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings provide insight into bereaved ICU surrogates' experiences. The low overall survey scores may reflect retrospective measurement. Surrogates who pursued treatment were underrepresented. Novel approaches to support bereaved surrogates are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":7607,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Critical Care","volume":"33 6","pages":"433-445"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2024211","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Surrogates of incapacitated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) face decisions related to life-sustaining treatments. Decisional conflict is understudied.

Objectives: To compare experiences of ICU surrogates by reported level of decisional conflict related to treatment decisions after a patient's cardiac arrest preceding death.

Methods: Convergent mixed methods were used. Bereaved surrogates recruited from a single northeastern US academic medical center completed surveys including the low-literacy Decisional Conflict Scale (moderate-to-high cut point >25) and individual interviews about 1 month after the patient's death. Interview data were analyzed by directed and conventional content analysis. Surrogates were stratified by median total survey score, and interview findings were compared by decisional conflict level.

Results: Of 16 surrogates, 7 reported some decisional conflict (median survey score, 0; range, 0-25). About two-thirds decided to withdraw treatments. Three themes emerged from interviews: 2 reflecting decision-making experiences ("the ultimate act"; "the legacy of clinician communication") and 1 reflecting bereavement experiences ("I wish there was a handbook"). Surrogates reporting decisional conflict included those who first pursued but later withdrew treatments after a patient's in-hospital cardiac arrest. Surrogates with decisional conflict described suboptimal support, poor medical understanding, and lack of clarity about patients' treatment preferences.

Conclusions: These findings provide insight into bereaved ICU surrogates' experiences. The low overall survey scores may reflect retrospective measurement. Surrogates who pursued treatment were underrepresented. Novel approaches to support bereaved surrogates are warranted.

心脏骤停后的医疗决策和丧亲体验:来自代理人的定性洞察。
背景:重症监护室(ICU)中无行为能力患者的代治人面临着与维持生命治疗相关的决定。对决策冲突的研究不足:比较重症监护室代治者在患者死亡前心脏骤停后与治疗决策相关的决策冲突程度:方法:采用聚合混合方法。从美国东北部一家学术医疗中心招募的丧亲代理完成了包括低文盲决策冲突量表(中-高切点>25)在内的调查,并在患者死亡约 1 个月后进行了个别访谈。访谈数据通过定向分析和传统内容分析进行分析。根据调查总分的中位数对代治者进行分层,并根据决策冲突程度对访谈结果进行比较:结果:在 16 位代治者中,有 7 位报告了一些决策冲突(调查得分中位数为 0;范围为 0-25)。约三分之二的人决定放弃治疗。访谈中出现了三个主题:2个主题反映了决策经验("终极行为";"临床医生沟通的遗产"),1个主题反映了丧亲经验("我希望有一本手册")。报告决策冲突的代治者包括那些在患者院内心脏骤停后先是继续治疗但后来又放弃治疗的人。有决定冲突的代治者描述了不理想的支持、对医疗的不理解以及对患者治疗偏好的不明确:这些发现让我们了解了失去亲人的 ICU 代治者的经历。调查的总体得分较低,这可能是回顾性测量的结果。寻求治疗的代治者所占比例较低。有必要采取新的方法为失去亲人的代治者提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
103
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The editors of the American Journal of Critical Care (AJCC) invite authors to submit original manuscripts describing investigations, advances, or observations from all specialties related to the care of critically and acutely ill patients. Papers promoting collaborative practice and research are encouraged. Manuscripts will be considered on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere and have been submitted solely to AJCC.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信