Racial Differences in Shared Decision-Making About Critical Illness

Author:

Ashana Deepshikha C.123,Welsh Whitney4,Preiss Doreet4,Sperling Jessica4,You HyunBin5,Tu Karissa6,Carson Shannon S.7,Hough Catherine8,White Douglas B.9,Kerlin Meeta10,Docherty Sharron5,Johnson Kimberly S.111,Cox Christopher E.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

2. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

3. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

4. Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

5. School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

6. School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle

7. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

8. Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland

9. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

10. Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

11. Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Durham Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Durham, North Carolina

Abstract

ImportanceShared decision-making is the preferred method for evaluating complex tradeoffs in the care of patients with critical illness. However, it remains unknown whether critical care clinicians engage diverse patients and caregivers equitably in shared decision-making.ObjectiveTo compare critical care clinicians' approaches to shared decision-making in recorded conversations with Black and White caregivers of patients with critical illness.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis thematic analysis consisted of unstructured clinician-caregiver meetings audio-recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation at 13 intensive care units in the US. Participants in meetings included critical care clinicians and Black or White caregivers of patients who underwent mechanical ventilation. The codebook included components of shared decision-making and known mechanisms of racial disparities in clinical communication. Analysts were blinded to caregiver race during coding. Patterns within and across racial groups were evaluated to identify themes. Data analysis was conducted between August 2021 and April 2023.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were themes describing clinician behaviors varying by self-reported race of the caregivers.ResultsThe overall sample comprised 20 Black and 19 White caregivers for a total of 39 audio-recorded meetings with clinicians. The duration of meetings was similar for both Black and White caregivers (mean [SD], 23.9 [13.7] minutes vs 22.1 [11.2] minutes, respectively). Both Black and White caregivers were generally middle-aged (mean [SD] age, 47.6 [9.9] years vs 51.9 [8.8] years, respectively), female (15 [75.0%] vs 14 [73.7%], respectively), and possessed a high level of self-assessed health literacy, which was scored from 3 to 15 with lower scores indicating increasing health literacy (mean [SD], 5.8 [2.3] vs 5.3 [2.0], respectively). Clinicians conducting meetings with Black and White caregivers were generally young (mean [SD] age, 38.8 [6.6] years vs 37.9 [8.2] years, respectively), male (13 [72.2%] vs 12 [70.6%], respectively), and White (14 [77.8%] vs 17 [100%], respectively). Four variations in clinicians' shared decision-making behaviors by caregiver race were identified: (1) providing limited emotional support for Black caregivers, (2) failing to acknowledge trust and gratitude expressed by Black caregivers, (3) sharing limited medical information with Black caregivers, and (4) challenging Black caregivers' preferences for restorative care. These themes encompass both relational and informational aspects of shared decision-making.Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this thematic analysis showed that critical care clinicians missed opportunities to acknowledge emotions and value the knowledge of Black caregivers compared with White caregivers. These findings may inform future clinician-level interventions aimed at promoting equitable shared decision-making.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Cited by 7 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3