Search

The article focuses on a study conducted by researcher J.R. Johnson and colleagues related to spiritual care services for dying patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and their families. It states that the services helped in family's satisfaction and decision making in ICU. It mentions that families which received the services were more religiously inclined than those who did not avail the services.

The article presents a study conducted by Young et al. that recommends a departure from current practice in intensive care units in suggesting that rationing be systematically disclosed. The researchers argue that if patients and families are routinely notified that rationing is done to effectively meet the needs of all patients, such notification would help to set realistic expectations and prepare patients and families for disclosure in specific instances.

The article discusses the development and verification of a printed information brochure for families of chronically critically ill patients through cognitive testing via interviews. A printed information brochure that may enhance family understanding of chronic critical illnesses and its outcomes was developed and validated. The described structed process can function as a template for developing other information aids for use with seriously ill populations.

Objectives: Family members commonly make medical decision for patients with chronic critical illness. This study examines how family members approach this decision-making role in real time.Design: Qualitative analysis of interviews with family members in the intervention arm of a randomized controlled communication trial.Settings: Medical ICUs at four U.S. hospitals.Participants: Family members of patients with chronic critical illness (adults mechanically ventilated for ≥ 7 d and expected to remain ventilated and survive for ≥ 72 hr) who participated in the active arm of a communication intervention study.Interventions: Family members participated in at least two content-guided, informational, and emotional support meetings led by a palliative care physician and nurse practitioner.Measurements and Main Results: Grounded theory was used for qualitative analysis of 66 audio recordings of meetings with 51 family members. Family members perceived their role in four main ways: voice of the patient, advocate for the patient, advocate for others, and advocate for oneself. Their decision-making was characterized by balancing goals, sharing their role, keeping perspective, remembering previous experiences, finding sources of strength, and coping with various burdens.Conclusions: Family members take a multifaceted approach as they participate in decision-making. Understanding how surrogates perceive and act in their roles may facilitate shared decision-making among clinicians and families during critical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Shared decision making is endorsed by critical care organizations; however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills.Design: The American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society were included in the statement.Main Results: Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable, including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies.Conclusions: Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]