Search

This paper explored the possibility of building channel emulators by utilizing fused deposition modeling (FDM) three-dimensional (3-D) printing technology. The FDM 3-D printing provides a rapid and economic method to produce parts with different shapes. An optimizing algorithm was developed for obtaining the printing pattern and loss profile. Parts with different dielectric constants and loss tangents can be printed. Those parts will be placed or directly printed on a low-loss transmission line to modify its transmission or reflection. As a result, different channel emulators can be built to emulate the S -parameter and eye diagrams of a target channel with the advantage of avoiding complicated electronic components and only being limited in the frequency range by the transmission line and attached connectors.

Although medical simulation is increasingly being used in healthcare education, there are few examples of how to rigorously design a simulation to evaluate and study important communication skills of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians.To use existing best practice recommendations to develop a medical simulation to study conflict management in ICUs, then assess the feasibility, acceptability, and realism of the simulation among ICU clinicians.The setting was a medical ICU of a tertiary care, university hospital. Participants were 36 physicians who treat critically ill patients: intensivists, palliative medicine specialists, and trainees. Using best-practice guidelines and an iterative, multidisciplinary approach, we developed and refined a simulation involving a critically ill patient, in which the patient had a clear advance directive specifying no use of life support, and a surrogate who was unwilling to follow the patient's preferences. ICU clinicians participated in the simulation and completed surveys and semistructured interviews to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and realism of the simulation.All participants successfully completed the simulation, and all perceived conflict with the surrogate (mean conflict score, 4.2 on a 0-10 scale [SD, 2.5; range, 1-10]). Participants reported high realism of the simulation across a range of criteria, with mean ratings of greater than 8 on a 0 to 10 scale for all domains assessed. During semistructured interviews, participants confirmed a high degree of realism and offered several suggestions for improvements.We used existing best practice recommendations to develop a simulation model to study physician-family conflict in ICUs that is feasible, acceptable, and realistic.

Neurally adjusted ventilator assist (NAVA) uses electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) to provide patient-directed ventilatory support. The NAVA level determines the proportional amount of ventilatory support. Systematically increasing NAVA level initially increases peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) while maintaining a constant Edi until a breakpoint (BrP) is reached. Further increases in NAVA level reduce the Edi, while the PIP plateaus. This study was performed to establish whether premature neonates have intact neural feedback systems allowing them to have a BrP.NAVA level was increased by 0.5 cm H2O μV(-1) every 3 min from 0.5 to 4.0 cm H2O μV(-1). PIP, Edi, mean blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and FIO2 were recorded. Statistics: Non-linear regression was done for PIP and Edi. Linear regression was done for the other variables. The data from the trials were combined by normalizing to NAVA levels above and below the BrP.Nine neonates were studied on NAVA and 12 on non-invasive NAVA. PIP increased until the BrP was reached and then remained unchanged. Edi decreased after the BrP was reached. All other variables remained unchanged.Neonates demonstrated a BrP suggesting intact neural feedback mechanisms that may protect lungs from over distention with NAVA ventilation.

Background: Specialty palliative care is not accessible for many patients with advanced cancer. There is a need to find alternative palliative care strategies in oncology clinics. Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness of an oncology nurse-led care management approach to improve primary palliative care. Methods: The study design was a single-arm pilot trial of the Care Management by Oncology Nurses (CONNECT) intervention, in which registered oncology nurses receive specialized training and work closely with oncologists to (1) address symptom needs; (2) engage patients and caregivers in advance care planning; (3) provide emotional support; and (4) coordinate care. The subjects were 23 patients with advanced cancer, 19 caregivers, and 5 oncologists from a community oncology clinic in western Pennsylvania. Feasibility was assessed through enrollment rates, outcome assessment rates, and visit checklists. Patients, caregivers, and oncologists completed three-month assessments of acceptability and perceived effectiveness. Results: The consent-to-approach rate was 86% and enrolled-to-consent rate, 77%. CONNECT was implemented according to protocol for all participants. No participants withdrew after enrollment. Four patients died during the study; three-month outcome assessments were completed with all remaining participants (83%). Patients and caregivers reported high satisfaction with CONNECT and perceived the intervention as helpful in addressing symptoms (85%), coping (91%), and planning for the future (82%). Oncologists unanimously agreed that CONNECT improved the quality of care provided for patients with advanced cancer. Conclusion: An oncology nurse-led care management intervention is feasible, acceptable, and was perceived to be effective for improving provision of primary palliative care. A randomized trial of CONNECT is warranted.

Objectives:The epidemiology of chronic critical illness is not well characterized. We sought to determine the prevalence, outcomes, and associated costs of chronic critical illness in the United States.Design:Population-based cohort study using data from the United States Healthcare Costs and Utiliz

The increased focus on patient and family-centered care in adult intensive care units (ICUs) has generated multiple platforms for clinician-family communication beyond traditional interdisciplinary family meetings (family meetings)-including family-centered rounds, bedside or telephone updates, and electronic family portals. Some clinicians and administrators are now using these platforms instead of conducting family meetings. For example, some institutions are moving toward using family-centered rounds as the main platform for clinician-family communication, and some physicians rely on brief daily updates to the family at the bedside or by phone, in lieu of family meetings. We argue that although each of these platforms is useful in some circumstances, there remains an important role for family meetings. We outline five goals of clinician-family communication-establishing trust, providing emotional support, conveying clinical information, understanding the patient as a person, and facilitating careful decision making-and we examine the extent to which various communication platforms are likely to achieve the goals. We argue that because no single platform can achieve all communication goals, an integrated strategy is needed. We present a model that integrates multiple communication platforms to effectively and efficiently support families across the arc of an ICU stay. Our framework employs bedside/telephone conversations and family-centered rounds throughout the admission to address high informational needs, along with well-timed family meetings that attend to families' emotions as well as patients' values and goals. This flexible model uses various communication platforms to achieve consistent, efficient communication throughout the ICU stay.

Efforts to answer the question of whether or when physicians may unilaterally refuse to provide treatments they deem medically futile, but that are nonetheless demanded by patients or their surrogates, have been characterized as intractable failures. We propose a new look at this old problem and suggest reframing the debate in terms of the implicit social contract, in healthy democracies, between the medical profession and the society it serves. This ever-evolving contract is predicated upon providing patients with beneficial and desired medical care within the constraints of scarce resources and the characteristics of our health-care system. The contract ranges over a continuum of decisions, from those that do not need an explicit negotiated agreement with the patient or surrogate, to those that do. Between these two poles lies a contentious gray area, where the rights and obligations of patients and physicians are being shaped continuously by the many forces that are at play in a democratic society, including professional guidelines, social advocacy, legislation, and litigation. We provide examples of how this gray area has been and is negotiated around rights to refuse and demand a variety of life-sustaining treatments, and anticipate conflicts likely to arise in the future. Reframing the futility debate in this way reveals that the issue is not a story of intractable failure, but rather, a successful narrative about how democracies balance the legitimate perspectives of patients and physicians against a backdrop of societal constraints and values.

Physicians are expected to engage patients as partners in identifying the possible benefits and harms associated with treatment options and selecting from among medically appropriate treatment options, rather than simply dictating what treatments patients will and will not receive. This collaborative model reflects the recognition that citizens in multicultural societies have diverse values and are likely to have different views about whether the possible benefits of a medical intervention outweigh the possible harms. However, there are circumstances in which the collaborative process breaks down due to irresolvable disagreement. Especially challenging are cases in which patients are expected to die if they do not receive a treatment and either the patients or their surrogates insist on the treatment despite the physician's belief that providing it is ill advised. The source of disagreement is often differing appraisals of the risks and potential benefits. In such cases, physicians generally judge that there is insufficient likelihood or magnitude of benefit to justify the burdens or expense of treatment, while patients or surrogates believe that the small chance of preventing the patient's death is sufficient to justify the costs and potential burdens to the patient. There is a perception that surgeons enjoy considerable discretion in deciding when the risks of a procedure outweigh the expected benefits. An important contrast can be drawn between surgeons and intensivists—physicians who specialize in the medical management of critically ill patients. We will argue that there are good reasons for subjecting the decisions of both surgeons and intensivists to some oversight. We begin by showing that, for many cases, major professional society guidelines for intensivists recommend oversight via a procedural mechanism rather than unilateral decision-making by individual clinicians. Next, we present reasons for adopting a procedural approach to dispute resolution, and we argue that these reasons apply to situations in which intensivists believe that patients or surrogates are requesting inappropriate life support as well as to many disagreements between surgeons and surrogates. Finally, we present and respond to several objections.

In the setting of a complex critical illness, preference-sensitive decision making-choosing between two or more reasonable treatment options-can be difficult for patients, families, and clinicians alike. A common challenge to making high-quality decisions in this setting is a lack of critical information access and sharing among participants. Decision aids-brochures, web applications, and videos-are a major focus of current research because mounting evidence suggests they can improve decision-making quality and enhance collaborative shared decision making. However, many decision aids have important limitations, including a relatively narrow capacity for personalization, an inability to gather and generate clinical data, a focus on only a single disease or treatment, and high developmental costs. To address these issues and to help guide future research, we propose a model of "universal" electronic decision support that can be easily adapted by clinicians and patients/families for whatever decision is at hand. In this scalable web-based platform, a general shared decision-making core structure would accommodate simple, interchangeable disease and treatment information modules. The format and content of the system could be adapted to decisional participants' unique characteristics, abilities, and needs. Universal decision support can better standardize a decisional approach and also allow a unique degree of personalization within a framework of shared decision making. We also discuss potential criticisms of this approach as well as strategies that can overcome them in a critical illness setting.

Donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) has the potential to increase the number of organs available for transplantation. Because consent and management of potential donors must occur before death, DCDD raises unique ethical and policy issues.To develop an ethics and health policy statement on adult and pediatric DCDD relevant to critical care and transplantation stakeholders.A multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders was convened to develop an ethics and health policy statement. The panel consisted of representatives from the American Thoracic Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, and the United Network of Organ Sharing. The panel reviewed the literature, discussed important ethics and health policy considerations, and developed a guiding framework for decision making by stakeholders.A framework to guide ethics and health policy statement was established, which addressed the consent process, pre- and post mortem interventions, the determination of death, provisions of end-of-life care, and pediatric DCDD.The information presented in this Statement is based on the current evidence, experience, and clinical rationale. New clinical research and the development and dissemination of new technologies will eventually necessitate an update of this Statement.

Objectives:There is substantial variation in use of life sustaining technologies in patients near the end of life but little is known about variation in physicians’ initial ICU admission and intubation decision making processes. Our objective is to describe variation in hospital-based physicians’ co

The burden of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms may be associated with worse outcomes after transplantation. Little is known about the prevalence and correlates of PTSD symptoms in lung transplant recipients.We conducted a cross-sectional study of lung transplant recipients between April 2008 and February 2010 at a single center. The PTSD Checklist was used to determine the burden of PTSD symptomatology (total score) and percent of subjects with a provisional PTSD diagnosis (validated algorithms). We assessed the relationship between PTSD symptom burden and patient characteristics with multivariable logistic modeling.We enrolled 210 subjects (response rate 91%). Most patients were female (50%), and Caucasian (89%). The median age was 59 (interquartile range [IQR] 48 to 63) years and the median time between transplant and follow-up was 2.4 (IQR 0.7 to 5.3) years. Clinically significant PTSD symptomatology was observed in 12.6% (8.4% to 17.9%) of subjects. Subjects were more likely to endorse symptoms of re-experiencing (29.5%) and arousal (33.8%) than avoidant symptoms (18.4%). Multivariable linear regression showed higher PTSD symptom scores among recipients who were: younger (p0.001); without private insurance (p = 0.001); exposed to trauma (p0.001); or diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (p = 0.005).Overall prevalence of PTSD (12.6%) in our study was two times higher than the general population. Patient characteristics found to be associated with an increased burden of PTSD symptoms may be useful to consider in future interventions designed to reduce this comorbidity.

© 2017 Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Objective: Many patients are admitted to the ICU at or near the end of their lives. Consequently, the increasingly common debate regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia holds implications for the practice of critical care medicine. The objective of this article is to explore core ethical issues related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia from the perspective of healthcare professionals and ethicists on both sides of the debate. Synthesis: We identified four issues highlighting the key areas of ethical tension central to evaluating physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in medical practice: 1) the benefit or harm of death itself, 2) the relationship between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia and withholding or withdrawing life support, 3) the morality of a physician deliberately causing death, and 4) the management of conscientious objection related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the critical care setting. We present areas of common ground and important unresolved differences. Conclusions: We reached differing positions on the first three core ethical questions and achieved unanimity on how critical care clinicians should manage conscientious objections related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The alternative positions presented in this article may serve to promote open and informed dialogue within the critical care community.

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients' expected post-discharge outcomes are rarely discussed in family meetings despite this information being centrally important to patients and their families.To characterize intensivist-identified barriers and facilitators to discussing post-discharge outcomes with surrogates of ICU patients.Qualitative study conducted via one-on-one, semistructured telephone interviews with 23 intensivists from 20 hospitals with accreditation council for graduate medical education-accredited critical care medicine programs in 16 states. A limited application of grounded theory methods was used to code transcribed interviews and identify themes and illustrative quotes.Intensivists reported tension between their professional responsibility to discuss likely functional outcomes versus uncertainty about their ability to predict those outcomes for an individual patient. They cited three main barriers as limiting their ability to conduct conversations about post-discharge outcomes with ICU surrogates: (1) incorrectly optimistic expectations for recovery among ICU surrogates, (2) having little or no contact with their patients after ICU discharge, and (3) minimal confidence applying existing outcomes research to individual patients. Despite these barriers, experience talking to ICU surrogates, seeing ICU survivors in the outpatient setting, and trusted research on functional outcomes were identified as important facilitators to discussing likely patient outcomes with surrogates. Intensivists generally welcomed questions from surrogates about post-discharge outcomes as opportunities to initiate conversations about prognosis and patient values.In this sample of intensivists from 20 academic hospitals, experience conducting conversations with surrogates and interactions with ICU survivors as outpatients were identified as facilitating discussion of expected post-discharge outcomes while optimistic surrogate expectations and prognostic uncertainty were barriers. There was tension between self-perceived ability to prognosticate and belief in a professional obligation to discuss patient outcomes.

PurposeAlthough surrogate decision-making (SDM) is prevalent in intensive care units (ICUs) and concerns with decision quality are well documented, little is known about how clinicians help family members understand the surrogate role. We investigated whether and how clinicians provide normative guidance to families regarding how to function as a surrogate.Subjects and methodsWe audiorecorded and transcribed 73 ICU family conferences in which clinicians anticipated discussing goals of care for incapacitated patients at high risk of death. We developed and applied a coding framework to identify normative statements by clinicians regarding what considerations should guide surrogates’ decisions, including whether clinicians explained one or more of Buchanan and Brock’s three standard principles of SDM to family members.ResultsClinicians made at least one statement about how to perform the surrogate role in 24 (34%) conferences (mean of 0.83 statements per conference (1.77; range 0–9)). We observed three general types of normative guidance provided to surrogates, with some conferences containing more than one type of guidance: counselling about one or more standard principles of SDM (24% of conferences); counselling surrogates to make decisions centred on the patient as a person, without specifying how to accomplish that (14% of conferences); and counselling surrogates to make decisions based on the family’s values (8% of conferences).ConclusionsClinicians did not provide normative guidance about the surrogate role in two-thirds of family conferences for incapacitated patients at high risk for death. When they did, clinicians’ guidance was often incomplete and sometimes conflicted with standard principles of SDM. Future work is needed to understand whether providing explicit guidance on how to perform the surrogate role improves decision-making or mitigates surrogates’ psychological distress.

Relatively little is known about neonatologists' roles in helping families navigate the difficult decision to attempt or withhold resuscitation for a neonate delivering at the threshold of viability. Therefore, we aimed to describe the "decision-making role" of neonatologists in simulated periviable counseling sessions.We conducted a qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded simulation encounters and post-encounter debriefing interviews collected as part of a single-center simulation study of neonatologists' resuscitation counseling practices in the face of ruptured membranes at 23 weeks gestation. We trained standardized patients to request a recommendation if the physician presented multiple treatment options. We coded each encounter for communication behaviors, applying an adapted, previously developed coding scheme to classify physicians into four decision-making roles (informative, facilitative, collaborative, or directive). We also coded post-simulation debriefing interviews for responses to the open-ended prompt: "During this encounter, what did you feel was your role in the management decision-making process?"Fifteen neonatologists (33% of the division) participated in the study; audio-recorded debriefing interviews were available for 13. We observed 9 (60%) take an informative role, providing medical information only; 2 (13%) take a facilitative role, additionally eliciting the patient's values; 3 (20%) take a collaborative role, additionally engaging the patient in deliberation and providing a recommendation; and 1 (7%) take a directive role, making a treatment decision independent of the patient. Almost all (10/13, 77%) of the neonatologists described their intended role as informative.Neonatologists did not routinely elicit preferences, engage in deliberation, or provide treatment recommendations-even in response to requests for recommendations. These findings suggest there may be a gap between policy recommendations calling for shared decision making and actual clinical practice.

Importance Misperceptions about prognosis by individuals making decisions for incapacitated critically ill patients (surrogates) are common and often attributed to poor comprehension of medical information. Objective To determine the prevalence of and factors related to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis in intensive care units (ICUs). Design, Setting, and Participants Mixed-methods study comprising quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews conducted in 4 ICUs at a major US medical center involving surrogate decision makers and physicians caring for patients at high risk of death from January 4, 2005, to July 10, 2009. Main Outcomes and Measures Discordance about prognosis, defined as a difference between a physician’s and a surrogate’s prognostic estimates of at least 20%; misunderstandings by surrogates (defined as any difference between a physician’s prognostic estimate and a surrogate’s best guess of that estimate); differences in belief (any difference between a surrogate’s actual estimate and their best guess of the physician’s estimate). Results Two hundred twenty-nine surrogate decision makers (median age, 47 [interquartile range {IQR}, 35-56] years; 68% women) and 99 physicians were involved in the care of 174 critically ill patients (median age, 60 [IQR, 47-74] years; 44% women). Physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis occurred in 122 of 229 instances (53%; 95% CI, 46.8%-59.7%). In 65 instances (28%), discordance was related to both misunderstandings by surrogates and differences in belief about the patient’s prognosis; 38 (17%) were related to misunderstandings by surrogates only; 7 (3%) were related to differences in belief only; and data were missing for 12. Seventy-five patients (43%) died. Surrogates’ prognostic estimates were much more accurate than chance alone, but physicians’ prognostic estimates were statistically significantly more accurate than surrogates’ (C statistic, 0.83 vs 0.74; absolute difference, 0.094; 95% CI, 0.024-0.163;P = .008). Among 71 surrogates interviewed who had beliefs about the prognosis that were more optimistic than that of the physician, the most common reasons for optimism were a need to maintain hope to benefit the patient (n = 34), a belief that the patient had unique strengths unknown to the physician (n = 24), and religious belief (n = 19). Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients, discordant expectations about prognosis were common between patients’ physicians and surrogate decision makers and were related to misunderstandings by surrogates about physicians’ assessments of patients’ prognoses and differences in beliefs about patients’ prognoses.

To say that a patient has a ‘right’ is to say both that the patient has a ‘claim’ against the clinician for X and that the clinician owes a correlative ‘duty’ to X to the patient. Patient rights are only prima facie valid claims that must sometimes yield to other sufficiently compelling claims. Overriding a right can be either justified (an ‘infringement’) or unjustified (a ‘violation’). This chapter explains the nature and source of patient rights; analyses the scope of patient rights; describes five specific patient rights that are particularly relevant to critical care; discusses three key ways in which patient rights might be illegitimately violated; discusses how patient rights might be justifiably infringed by distributive justice concerns; discusses how patient rights might be justifiably infringed by clinicians’ assertion of their own rights, either on the basis of professional integrity or on the basis of personal conscience-based objections; and concludes by describing four leading mechanisms by which patient rights are balanced against clinician rights. Patient–clinician conflicts usually can be prevented or mediated. When conflict is intractable, it should be resolved through appeal to socially-accepted rules or managed through a fair process of dispute resolution.

BACKGROUND Family members of patients in intensive care are at increased risk for psychological symptoms. OBJECTIVES To compare levels of posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression during and 3 months after the intensive care experience in family members of patients at high risk for dying and to determine if differences were related to the patient's final disposition. METHODS Longitudinal descriptive study of 41 family members in 3 tertiary care intensive care units. RESULTS By repeated-measures analysis of variance, family members' levels of posttraumatic stress disorder were significantly lower (P = .01) at 3 months after (mean score, 1.27; SD, 0.86) than during (mean, 1.61; SD, 0.81) the experience. Mean anxiety and depression scores were significantly lower (P < .001) after (anxiety: 7.35; SD, 3.91; depression: 5.63; SD, 4.58) than during (anxiety: 11.5; SD, 4.88; depression: 9.51; SD, 4.31) the experience. Scores for posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression did not differ significantly between family members of patients who died and family members of patients who survived. Yet, all 13 family members of deceased patients and 42% of the total sample of 41 had traumatic stress scores of 1.5 or greater. Among the total sample, 44% had significant anxiety, and 27% were depressed. CONCLUSION Family members' symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression significantly decreased 3 months after the intensive care experience and did not differ according to the patients' final disposition. However, many family members still had significant risk for posttraumatic stress disorder and borderline anxiety and depression at 3 months.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) synchronizes spontaneous respiratory effort with mechanical ventilation. Electrodes detect the electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) and transmit this information to the ventilator, allowing the patient to determine their own respiratory rate (RR), peak pressures, and inspiratory and expiratory times in synchrony with the ventilator. The objective of this study was to evaluate if premature neonates ventilate as effectively on NAVA as compared to pressure control ventilation (PCV). Five ventilated neonates were enrolled (gestational age 25–29 weeks). Each neonate was ventilated on NAVA for 4 h, then switched to PCV for another 4 h. The cycle was repeated three times. Ventilatory parameters were averaged every 30 min to collect eight time points for each ventilatory mode. Data were analyzed using the mixed effects model procedure, utilizing the least-squares means (P

Although the need to ration health care is increasingly accepted, the need for bedside physicians to participate in it is not. There are three common perspectives on physicians' roles in rationing: one is that bedside physicians should advocate fully for their patients and eschew rationing; another is that some rationing is permissible but should be imposed from outside the patient-physician relationship; the third is that bedside physicians should simultaneously advocate for their individual patients and make bedside rationing decisions that incorporate societal interests. The first two conceptualizations are at odds with empirical evidence that physicians do ration at the bedside and the idea that doing so may be a necessary part of efforts to control costs, whereas the third raises difficult ethical questions about the extent of physicians' obligations to advocate maximally for their individual patients.

Survivors of acute lung injury (ALI) and their informal caregivers have difficulty coping with the physical and emotional challenges of recovery from critical illness. We aimed to develop and pilot test a telephone-based coping skills training intervention for this population.Fifty-eight participants were enrolled overall. A total of 21 patients and 23 caregivers participated in a cross-sectional study to assess coping and its association with psychological distress. This also informed the development of an ALI coping skills training intervention in an iterative process involving content and methodological experts. The intervention was then evaluated in seven patients and seven caregivers in an uncontrolled, prospective, pre-post study. Outcomes included acceptability, feasibility, and symptoms of psychological distress measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Post-Traumatic Symptom Scale (PTSS).Survivors and their caregivers used adaptive coping infrequently, a pattern that was strongly associated with psychological distress. These findings informed the development of a 12-session intervention for acquiring, applying, and maintaining coping skills. In the evaluation phase, participants completed 77 (92 %) of a possible 84 telephone sessions and all (100 %) reported the intervention's usefulness in their daily routine. Mean change scores reflecting improvements in the HADS (7.8 U) and PTSS (10.3 U) were associated with adaptive coping (r = 0.50-0.70) and high self-efficacy (r = 0.67-0.79).A novel telephone-based coping skills training intervention was acceptable, feasible, and may have been associated with a reduction in psychological distress among survivors of ALI and their informal caregivers. A randomized trial is needed to evaluate the intervention.

Every country has finite resources that are expended to provide citizens with social "goods," including education, protection, infrastructure, and health care. Rationing-of any resource-refers to distribution of an allotted amount and may involve withholding some goods that would benefit some citizens. Health-care rationing is controversial because good health complements so many human endeavors. We explored (perceptions regarding) critical care rationing in seven industrialized countries. Academic physicians from England, Spain, Italy, France, Argentina, Canada, and the United States wrote essays that addressed specific questions including: (1) What historical, cultural, and medical institutional features inform my country's approach to rationing of health care? (2) What is known about formal rationing, especially in critical care, in my country? (3) How does rationing occur in my ICU? Responses suggest that critical care is rationed, by varying mechanisms, in all seven countries. We speculate that while no single "best" method of rationing is likely to be acceptable or optimal for all countries, professional societies could serve international health by developing evidence-based guidelines for just and effective rationing of critical care.

Objective:Hematopoietic syndrome (HS) is a clinical diagnosis assigned to people who present with ≥1 new-onset cytopenias in the setting of acute radiation exposure. The World Health Organization convened a panel of experts to evaluate the evidence and develop recommendations for medical countermeasures for the management of HS in a hypothetical scenario involving the hospitalization of 100 to 200 individuals exposed to radiation. The objective of this consultancy was to develop recommendations for treatment of the HS based upon the quality of evidence.Methods:English-language articles were identified in MEDLINE and PubMed. Reference lists of retrieved articles were distributed to panel members before the meeting and updated during the meeting. Published case series and case reports of individuals with HS, published randomized controlled trials of relevant interventions used to treat nonirradiated individuals, reports of studies in irradiated animals, and prior recommendations of subject matter experts were selected. Studies were extracted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. In cases in which data were limited or incomplete, a narrative review of the observations was made. No randomized controlled trials of medical countermeasures have been completed for individuals with radiation-associated HS. The use of GRADE analysis of countermeasures for injury to hematopoietic tissue was restricted by the lack of comparator groups in humans. Reliance on data generated in nonirradiated humans and experimental animals was necessary.Results:Based upon GRADE analysis and narrative review, a strong recommendation was made for the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor and a weak recommendation was made for the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Conclusions:Assessment of therapeutic interventions for HS in humans exposed to nontherapeutic radiation is difficult because of the limits of the evidence.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:202-212)

Objectives:The World Health Organization convened a panel of experts to rank the evidence for medical countermeasures for management of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in a hypothetical scenario involving the hospitalization of 100 to 200 victims. The goal of this panel was to achieve consensus on optimal management of ARS affecting nonhematopoietic organ systems based upon evidence in the published literature.Methods:English-language articles were identified in MEDLINE and PubMed. Reference lists of retrieved articles were distributed to conferees in advance of and updated during the meeting. Published case series and case reports of ARS, publications of randomized controlled trials of relevant interventions used to treat nonirradiated individuals, reports of studies in irradiated animals, and prior recommendations of subject matter experts were selected. Studies were extracted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. In cases in which data were limited or incomplete, a narrative review of the observations was made.Results:No randomized controlled trials of medical countermeasures have been completed for individuals with ARS. Reports of countermeasures were often incompletely described, making it necessary to rely on data generated in nonirradiated humans and in experimental animals. A strong recommendation is made for the administration of a serotonin-receptor antagonist prophylactically when the suspected exposure is >2 Gy and topical steroids, antibiotics, and antihistamines for radiation burns, ulcers, or blisters; excision and grafting of radiation ulcers or necrosis with intractable pain; provision of supportive care to individuals with neurovascular syndrome; and administration of electrolyte replacement therapy and sedatives to individuals with significant burns, hypovolemia, and/or shock. A strong recommendation is made against the use of systemic steroids in the absence of a specific indication. A weak recommendation is made for the use of fluoroquinolones, bowel decontamination, loperamide, and enteral nutrition, and for selective oropharyngeal/digestive decontamination, blood glucose maintenance, and stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients.Conclusions:High-quality studies of therapeutic interventions in humans exposed to nontherapeutic radiation are not available, and because of ethical concerns regarding the conduct of controlled studies in humans, such studies are unlikely to emerge in the near future.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:183–201)

Many aspects of care for critically ill patients that were once managed exclusively by physicians are now collaboratively managed by clinicians from several disciplines.1-3 However, most of the responsibility remains with physicians to help surrogate decision makers deliberate about goals of care for patients with advanced critical illness. This is rational if decision making is conceptualized as a purely cognitive process requiring only physicians’ technical biomedical knowledge. However, this narrow conceptualization is at odds with the reality that surrogate decision making is also an emotional and moral endeavor. Moreover, the simple goal of ensuring timely, consistent communication in intensive care units (ICUs) is an organizational challenge. When conceptualized in this way, the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration is clear—no single individual has sufficient skills and time to attend to the diverse challenges that surrogates face in ICUs. In this article, I present a multidimensional framework of the barriers to high quality surrogate decision making in ICUs and present 5 ways that clinical nurses could be more explicitly incorporated into interventions to improve surrogate decision making in ICUs.

Surrogate decision makers and clinicians often have discordant perceptions about a patient's prognosis. There is a paucity of empirical data to guide communication about prognosis.To assess: (1) whether numeric or qualitative statements more reliably convey prognostic estimates; and (2) whether surrogates believe physicians' prognostic estimates.A total of 169 surrogate decision makers for intensive care unit patients were randomized to view 1 of 2 versions of a video portraying a simulated family conference involving a hypothetical patient. The videos varied only by whether prognosis was conveyed in numeric terms ("10% chance of surviving") or qualitative terms ("very unlikely" to survive).We assessed: (1) surrogates' personal estimates of the patient's prognosis; and (2) surrogates' understanding of the physician's prognostic estimate. Neither surrogates' personal estimates nor their understanding of the physician's prognostication differed when prognosis was conveyed numerically versus qualitatively (surrogates' estimate, 22 ± 23% chance of survival versus 26 ± 24%, P = 0.26; understanding of physician's estimate, 17 ± 22% chance of survival versus 16 ± 17%, P = 0.62). One in five surrogates estimated the patient's prognosis was greater than 20% more optimistic than the physician's prognostication. Less trust in physicians was associated with larger discrepancies between surrogates' personal estimates and their understanding of the physician's estimate.Neither numeric nor qualitative statements reliably convey news of a poor prognosis to surrogates in intensive care units. Many surrogates do not view physicians' prognostications as absolutely accurate. Factors other than ineffective communication may contribute to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis.

To describe the symptom experiences of family members of patients at high risk for dying in the intensive care unit and to assess risk factors associated with higher symptom burden.Prospective, cross-sectional study.Three intensive care units at a large academic medical center.A sample of 74 family members of 74 intensive care unit patients who had a grave prognosis and were judged to be at high risk for dying. Patients at high risk for dying were identified as having Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores20, an intensive care unit length of stay72 hrs, and being mechanically ventilated.None.We assessed the degree of symptom burden approximately 4 days after the patient's admission to the intensive care unit in the following domains: traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression. Overall, the prevalence of symptoms was high, with more than half (57%) of family members having moderate to severe levels of traumatic stress, 80% having borderline symptoms of anxiety, and 70% having borderline symptoms of depression. More than 80% of family members had other physical and emotional symptoms, such as fatigue, sadness, and fear, and these were experienced at the moderate to severe levels of distress. Factors independently associated with greater severity of symptoms included younger age, female gender, and non-white race of the family member. The only patient factor significantly associated with symptom severity was younger age. Despite their symptom experience, the majority of the family members were coping at moderate to high levels and functioning at high levels during the intensive care unit experience.We document a high prevalence of psychological and physical symptoms among family members during an intensive care unit admission. These data complement existing data on long-term symptom burden and highlight the need to improve family centered care in intensive care units.

Death statutes permit physicians to declare death on the basis of irreversible cessation of circulatory-respiratory or brain functions. The growing practice of organ donation after circulatory determination of death now requires physicians to exercise greater specificity in circulatory-respiratory death determination. We studied circulatory-respiratory death determination to clarify its concept, practice, and application to innovative circulatory determination of death protocols.It is ethically and legally appropriate to procure organs when permanent cessation (will not return) of circulation and respiration has occurred but before irreversible cessation (cannot return) has occurred because permanent cessation: 1) is an established medical practice standard for determining death; 2) is the meaning of "irreversible" in the Uniform Determination of Death Act; and 3) does not violate the "Dead Donor Rule."The use of unmodified extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the circulatory determination of death donor after death is declared should be abandoned because, by restoring brain circulation, it retroactively negates the previous death determination. Modifications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation that avoid this problem by excluding brain circulation are contrived, invasive, and, if used, should require consent of surrogates. Heart donation in circulatory determination of death is acceptable if proper standards are followed to declare donor death after establishing the permanent cessation of circulation. Pending additional data on "auto-resuscitation," we recommend that all circulatory determination of death programs should utilize the prevailing standard of 2 to 5 mins of demonstrated mechanical asystole before declaring death.

Because they provide potential benefit at great personal and public cost, the intensive care unit (ICU) and the interventions rendered therein have become symbols of both the promise and the limitations of medical technology. At the same time, the ICU has served as an arena in which many of the ethical and legal dilemmas created by that technology have been defined and debated. This article outlines major events in the history of ethics and law in the ICU, covering the evolution of ICUs, ethical principles, informed consent and the law, medical decision-making, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, legal cases involving life support, advance directives, prognostication, and futility and the allocation of medical resources. Advancement of the ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy in ICUs increasingly is in conflict with physicians' concern about their own prerogatives and with the just distribution of medical resources.

Because most critically ill patients lack decision-making capacity, physicians often ask family members to act as surrogates for the patient in discussions about the goals of care. Therefore, clinician-family communication is a central component of medical decision making in the ICU, and the quality of this communication has direct bearing on decisions made regarding care for critically ill patients. In addition, studies suggest that clinician-family communication can also have profound effects on the experiences and long-term mental health of family members. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a context and rationale for improving the quality of communication with family members and to provide practical, evidence-based guidance on how to conduct this communication in the ICU setting. We emphasize the importance of discussing prognosis effectively, the key role of the integrated interdisciplinary team in this communication, and the importance of assessing spiritual needs and addressing barriers that can be raised by cross-cultural communication. We also discuss the potential value of protocols to encourage communication and the potential role of quality improvement for enhancing communication with family members. Last, we review issues regarding physician reimbursement for communication with family members within the context of the US health-care system. Communication with family members in the ICU setting is complex, and high-quality communication requires training and collaboration of a well-functioning interdisciplinary team. This communication also requires a balance between adhering to processes of care that are associated with improved outcomes and individualizing communication to the unique needs of the family.

Rationale. Although misunderstandings about prognosis are common in intensive care units (ICUs), little is known about how physicians actually communicate prognostic information. Objectives. The authors sought to 1) develop a framework to describe the language physicians use to disclose prognosis, 2) determine whether physicians frame prognostic statements as estimates for populations or estimates for individual patients, and 3) determine whether physicians use the recommended ‘‘ask-tell-ask’’ approach when discussing prognosis. Methods. The authors conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional study of 51 audiotaped physician-family conferences about life support decisions in ICUs. They identified each prognostic statement and used grounded theory methods to develop a framework to understand the language physicians use to communicate prognosis. Main Results. Physicians prognosticated in 50 of 51 conferences. When discussing prognosis, physicians used qualitative probability statements in 72% (36/50) of conferences, numeric statements in 20% (10/50), absolute statements in 13% (4/32), and nonprobabilistic statements in 40% (20/50). Physicians exclusively used population-based language in 10% (5/50) of conferences, single-event probability statements in 62% (31/50), and both in 28% (14/ 50). In only 2% (1/50) of conferences did physicians ask whether the family wished to hear prognostic information prior to discussing it, and in only 14% of conferences (7/50) did physicians check to verify that families understood the prognostic information. Conclusions. There is considerable variability in the language used by physicians to disclose prognosis, with only 20% of physicians using quantitative terms. Very few physicians checked whether families understood prognostic information. These findings may provide potential targets for interventions to improve communication about prognosis in ICUs.

Although discussing a prognosis is a duty of physicians caring for critically ill patients, little is known about surrogate decision-makers' beliefs about physicians' ability to prognosticate. We sought to determine: 1) surrogates' beliefs about whether physicians can accurately prognosticate for critically ill patients; and 2) how individuals use prognostic information in their role as surrogate decision-makers.Multicenter study in intensive care units of a public hospital, a tertiary care hospital, and a veterans' hospital. We conducted semistructured interviews with 50 surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients. We analyzed the interview transcripts using grounded theory methods to inductively develop a framework to describe surrogates' beliefs about physicians' ability to prognosticate. Validation methods included triangulation by multidisciplinary analysis and member checking.Overall, 88% (44 of 50) of surrogates expressed doubt about physicians' ability to prognosticate for critically ill patients. Four distinct themes emerged that explained surrogates' doubts about prognostic accuracy: a belief that God could alter the course of the illness, a belief that predicting the future is inherently uncertain, prior experiences where physicians' prognostications were inaccurate, and experiences with prognostication during the patient's intensive care unit stay. Participants also identified several factors that led to belief in physicians' prognostications, such as receiving similar prognostic estimates from multiple physicians and prior experiences with accurate prognostication. Surrogates' doubts about prognostic accuracy did not prevent them from wanting prognostic information. Instead, most surrogate decision-makers view physicians' prognostications as rough estimates that are valuable in informing decisions, but are not determinative. Surrogates identified the act of prognostic disclosure as a key step in preparing emotionally and practically for the possibility that a patient may not survive.Although many surrogate decision-makers harbor some doubt about the accuracy of physicians' prognostications, they highly value discussions about prognosis and use the information for multiple purposes.

Background Web-based electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) measures are increasingly used to facilitate patient-centered health assessments. However, it is unknown if ePRO completion is feasible for recently ill intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and their families. Objective To develop and evaluate the usability of a novel ePRO system (ePRO to Support People and Enhance Recovery [ePROSPER]) among ICU survivors and their families within an ongoing clinical trial. Methods Paper-based PROs were iteratively adapted to electronic forms (ePROs). Then, the usability of ePROSPER was assessed among 60 patients, their family members, and PRO and programming experts via questionnaires (eg, Systems Usability Scale), "think aloud" open-ended feedback, task completion times, and error rates. Results Input from patients and their families was used to incorporate user-experience modifications into ePROSPER. This feedback also led to inclusion of automated reminders for questionnaire completion and real-time alerts for staff triggered by high symptom levels. Median usability scores increased over testing cycles from 40 to 73 to 95, nearing the maximum score and showing excellent usability. All users completed ePROSPER within 20 minutes; 87% preferred it to a written version. ePROSPER was then implemented in a clinical trial without data errors. Conclusions Automated ePRO systems can be successfully integrated in a post-ICU clinical trial setting. The value of integrating such systems in direct clinical care should be assessed in future studies.

Physicians and nurses sometimes exert pressure on the families of critically ill patients to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapy from them. This pressure may stem from prognostic, professional, social, and economic factors. Although the pressure to limit life support may be appropriate in some circumstances, in others it is not justified. The pressure also may damage communications and cause resentment. If communications cannot be improved, and if the pressure cannot be relieved, a due process approach to conflict resolution that involves other parties may be required.

Although noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is a widely accepted treatment for some patients with acute respiratory failure, the use of NPPV in patients who have decided to forego endotracheal intubation is controversial. Therefore, the Society of Critical Care Medicine charged this Task Force with developing an approach for considering use of NPPV for patients who choose to forego endotracheal intubation.The Task Force met in person once, by conference call twice, and wrote this document during six subsequent months. We reviewed English-language literature on NPPV for acute respiratory failure. SYNTHESIS AND OVERVIEW: The use of NPPV for patients with acute respiratory failure can be classified into three categories: 1) NPPV as life support with no preset limitations on life-sustaining treatments, 2) NPPV as life support when patients and families have decided to forego endotracheal intubation, and 3) NPPV as a palliative measure when patients and families have chosen to forego all life support, receiving comfort measures only. For each category, we reviewed the rationale and evidence for NPPV, key points to communicate to patients and families, determinants of success and failure, appropriate healthcare settings, and alternative approaches if NPPV fails to achieve the original goals.This Task Force suggests an approach to use of NPPV for patients and families who choose to forego endotracheal intubation. NPPV should be applied after careful discussion of the goals of care, with explicit parameters for success and failure, by experienced personnel, and in appropriate healthcare settings. Future studies are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of using NPPV for patients who choose to forego endotracheal intubation and to examine the perspectives of patients, families, and clinicians on use of NPPV in these contexts.

Prognostic information is important to the family members of incapacitated, critically ill patients, yet little is known about what prognostic information physicians provide. Our objectives were to determine the types of prognostic information provided to families of critically ill patients when making major end-of-life treatment decisions and to identify factors associated with more physician prognostication.Multiple-center, cross-sectional study.ICUs of four hospitals.Thirty-five physicians, 51 patients, and 169 family members.We audiotaped 51 physician-family conferences in which there were deliberations about major end-of-life treatment decisions at four hospitals in 2000-2002. Conferences were coded to identify the types of prognostic information provided by physicians. We used a mixed-effects regression model to identify factors associated with more prognostication by physicians.The mean number of prognostic statements per conference was 9.4+/-6.4 (range 0-29). Eighty-six percent of conferences contained discussion of the patient's anticipated functional status or quality of life, compared with 63% in which the chances for survival were discussed (p=.01). There were significantly more statements about prognosis for functional outcomes per conference compared with statements about prognosis for survival (median 4 [interquartile range 2-8] vs. 1 [interquartile range 0-3]; p.001). Increasing educational level of the family was independently associated with more prognostic statements by physicians (p.001) as was the degree of physician-family conflict about withdrawing life support (p.001) and the physician's race being white (p=.009).Prognostication occurred frequently during physician-family deliberations about whether to forego life support, but physicians did not discuss the patient's prognosis for survival in more than one third of conferences. Less educated families received less information about prognosis. Future studies should address whether these observations partially explain the high prevalence of family misunderstandings about prognosis in intensive care units.

This paper reframes the futility debate, moving away from the question "Who decides when to end what is considered to be a medically inappropriate or futile treatment?" and toward the question "How can society make policy that will best account for the multitude of values and conflicts involved in such decision-making?" It offers a pragmatist moral epistemology that provides us with (1) a clear justification of why it is important to take best standards, norms, and physician judgment seriously and (2) a clear justification of why ample opportunity must be made for patients, families, and society to challenge those standards and norms.

Family meetings to establish care goals for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are inherently challenging due to asymmetries of information between physicians and families, complicated family dynamics, mixed messages from providers, and uncertainty about prognosis and preferences (1, 2). How we communicate during these meetings—specifically the words we choose—may interfere with our ability to determine patient preferences and goals. One word that may be particularly problematic is the use of the word “want.”

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.Semistructured interviews: We analyzed interviews using qualitative description with constant comparative techniques.Nine hundred-bed, academic, tertiary hospital in Houston, Texas. Interviewees were from open medical, surgical, neurosurgical, and cardiovascular ICUs.Thirty healthcare professionals were interviewed (nine surgeons, 16 intensivists, three nurse practitioners, and two "other" clinicians).None.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.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.

This article provides a historical, ethical, and conceptual review of medical futility disputes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Particular emphasis is placed on the role that physician power plays in these disputes. Specifically, the article analyzes the circumstances and arguments proposed to justify when physicians may stop life-sustaining treatment without the consent of either the patient or surrogate. The article begins by reviewing the history of the medical futility movement and the causes of medical futility disputes. Second, the major positions and policy statements addressing how such disputes should be resolved are summarized. Third, the article turns from an objective, descriptive approach to a more normative approach by highlighting the value-laden nature of most “futility” judgments regarding potentially inappropriate treatment. Finally, an outline of how clinicians should respond to requests for ICU interventions that they deem medically or ethically inappropriate is provided.

Importance Although many patients and their families view religion or spirituality as an important consideration near the end of life, little is known about the extent to which religious or spiritual considerations arise during goals-of-care conversations in the intensive care unit. Objectives To determine how frequently surrogate decision makers and health care professionals discuss religious or spiritual considerations during family meetings in the intensive care unit and to characterize how health care professionals respond to such statements by surrogates. Design, setting, and participants A multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted between October 8, 2009, and October 24, 2012, regarding 249 goals-of-care conversations between 651 surrogate decision makers and 441 health care professionals in 13 intensive care units across the United States. Audio-recorded conversations between surrogate decision makers and health care professionals were analyzed, transcribed, and qualitatively coded. Data analysis took place from March 10, 2012, through May 24, 2014. Exposures Goals-of-care conferences. Main outcomes and measures Constant comparative methods to develop a framework for coding religious and spiritual statements were applied to the transcripts. Participants completed demographic questionnaires that included religious affiliation and religiosity. Results Of 457 surrogate decision makers, 355 (77.6%) endorsed religion or spirituality as fairly or very important in their life. Discussion of religious or spiritual considerations occurred in 40 of 249 conferences (16.1%). Surrogates were the first to raise religious or spiritual considerations in most cases (26 of 40). Surrogates' statements (n=59) fell into the following 5 main categories: references to their religious or spiritual beliefs, including miracles (n=34); religious practices (n=19); religious community (n=8); the notion that the physician is God's instrument to promote healing (n=4); and the interpretation that the end of life is a new beginning for their loved one (n=4). Some statements fell into more than 1 category. In response to surrogates' religious or spiritual statements, health care professionals redirected the conversation to medical considerations (n=15), offered to involve hospital spiritual care providers or the patient's own religious or spiritual community (n=14), expressed empathy (n=13), acknowledged surrogates' statements (n=11), or explained their own religious or spiritual beliefs (n=3). In only 8 conferences did health care professionals attempt to further understand surrogates' beliefs, for example, by asking questions about the patient's religion. Conclusions and relevance Among a cohort of surrogate decision makers with a relatively high degree of religiosity, discussion of religious or spiritual considerations occurred in fewer than 20% of goals-of-care conferences in intensive care units, and health care professionals rarely explored the patient's or family's religious or spiritual ideas.

For an increasing number of patients, critical illness or injury is neither self-limited nor imminently fatal1. As survival from life-threatening illness improves, pre-existing disease and newly-acquired organ dysfunction may conspire against recovery, leaving patients dependent on life supporting therapies for extended time periods. This syndrome, termed “chronic critical illness”, is commonly typified by persistent respiratory failure that requires prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). Long-term mortality is high, approaching rates of 40% to 60% at one-year in inclusive cohorts2–10. Patients have a very high symptom burden during the weeks of prolonged ventilation11,12 and chances of living at home with functional independence at the end of the year are as low as 10%9,13. Most PMV patients are unable to participate in their own clinical decision making and must therefore rely on surrogates to guide their goals of care. These surrogate decision makers report that physicians rarely discuss prognosis, and studies have shown that physician and family estimates of one year outcome are highly discordant14,15. Traditional approaches to ICU mortality prediction, such as APACHE, are ill-suited to predicting longer term outcomes, particularly in this population16. Our research group developed and validated the ProVent mortality prediction model which estimates one-year mortality for patients receiving at least 21 days of mechanical ventilation to address prognostic uncertainty for these unique patients2,3,17. However, many important decisions regarding the care of PMV patients occur before 21 days have elapsed, including electing to perform tracheotomy18 or transfer care to a long-term acute care hospital (LTACH), both of which in are in some form decisions to continue life sustaining therapies19,20. If compelling prognostic data were available sooner for the patient whose goals of care are known, these decisions might be made more easily and earlier in the course of illness21–23. Building on our previous work, we hypothesized that a simple mortality prediction model constructed from factors clinically available by day 14 in the course of mechanical ventilation could discriminate between PMV patients at high and low risk of death at one year. Using a heterogeneous multicenter cohort of PMV patients in addition to a contemporaneous cohort of patients with acute lung injury (ALI) who were enrolled in a randomized, controlled trial, we sought to develop and validate a new model using data collected on day 14 of mechanical ventilation rather than on day 21 as in our previous model.

Although numerous studies have documented that family members in intensive care units struggle with end-of-life decisions for incapacitated patients, there is little information about whether prior advance care planning lessens the burden of decision making.We sought to measure decisional conflict in surrogates of critically ill patients and to examine whether prior advance care planning is associated with less decisional conflict.We performed a secondary data analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort study done at five U.S. academic medical centers that included 471 surrogates of 257 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The main outcome was surrogates' burden of decision making as measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale. Surrogates completed a questionnaire item addressing whether they had had any prior advance care planning conversations with their loved ones. We used multilevel linear regression modeling to measure the association between decisional conflict and advance care planning.Moderate or high levels of decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale score≥25) were present in 48% of surrogates. After adjusting for potential confounders, surrogates who had engaged in prior advance care planning conversations had significantly lower levels of decisional conflict than those who had not (mean score 3.3 points lower on the Decisional Conflict Scale; 95% confidence interval, -6.4 to -0.2; P=0.03).Nearly half of surrogates for critically ill patients have moderate or high levels of decisional conflict. Prior advance care planning was associated with less decisional conflict. These results suggest that the scope of the benefit of advance care planning may extend beyond respecting patients' wishes to also ameliorating the burden on patients' loved ones who act as surrogates.