Impact of advance directives on the variability between intensivists in the decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment
-
Published:2020-12
Issue:1
Volume:24
Page:
-
ISSN:1364-8535
-
Container-title:Critical Care
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Crit Care
Author:
Smirdec Margot, Jourdain Mercé, Guastella Virginie, Lambert Céline, Richard Jean-Christophe, Argaud Laurent, Jaber Samir, Klouche Kada, Medard Anne, Reignier Jean, Rigaud Jean-Philippe, Doise Jean-Marc, Chabanne Russell, Souweine Bertrand, Bourenne Jeremy, Delmas Julie, Bertrand Pierre-Marie, Verdier Philippe, Quenot Jean-Pierre, Aubron Cecile, Eisenmann Nathanael, Asfar Pierre, Fratani Alexandre, Dellamonica Jean, Terzi Nicolas, Constantin Jean-Michel, Van Lander Axelle, Guerin Renaud, Pereira Bruno, Lautrette AlexandreORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Background
There is wide variability between intensivists in the decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment (DFLST). Advance directives (ADs) allow patients to communicate their end-of-life wishes to physicians. We assessed whether ADs reduced variability in DFLSTs between intensivists.
Methods
We conducted a multicenter, prospective, simulation study. Eight patients expressed their wishes in ADs after being informed about DFLSTs by an intensivist-investigator. The participating intensivists answered ten questions about the DFLSTs of each patient in two scenarios, referring to patients’ characteristics without ADs (round 1) and then with (round 2). DFLST score ranged from 0 (no-DFLST) to 10 (DFLST for all questions). The main outcome was variability in DFLSTs between intensivists, expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD).
Results
A total of 19,680 decisions made by 123 intensivists from 27 ICUs were analyzed. The DFLST score was higher with ADs than without (6.02 95% CI [5.85; 6.19] vs 4.92 95% CI [4.75; 5.10], p < 0.001). High inter-intensivist variability did not change with ADs (RSD: 0.56 (round 1) vs 0.46 (round 2), p = 0.84). Inter-intensivist agreement on DFLSTs was weak with ADs (intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.28). No factor associated with DFLSTs was identified. A qualitative analysis of ADs showed focus on end-of-life wills, unwanted things and fear of pain.
Conclusions
ADs increased the DFLST rate but did not reduce variability between the intensivists. In the decision-making process using ADs, the intensivist’s decision took priority. Further research is needed to improve the matching of the physicians’ decision with the patient’s wishes.
Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03013530. Registered 6 January 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03013530.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
Reference37 articles.
1. Lobo SM, De Simoni FHB, Jakob SM, Estella A, Vadi S, Bluethgen A, et al. Decision-making on withholding or withdrawing life support in the ICU: a worldwide perspective. Chest. 2017;152:321–9. 2. Lautrette A, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Bertrand P-M, Goldgran-Toledano D, Jamali S, Laurent V, et al. Respective impact of no escalation of treatment, withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment on ICU patients’ prognosis: a multicenter study of the Outcomerea Research Group. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1763–72. 3. Ciroldi M, Cariou A, Adrie C, Annane D, Castelain V, Cohen Y, et al. Ability of family members to predict patient’s consent to critical care research. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:807–13. 4. Lautrette A, Peigne V, Watts J, Souweine B, Azoulay E. Surrogate decision makers for incompetent ICU patients: a European perspective. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14:714–9. 5. White DB, Ernecoff N, Buddadhumaruk P, Hong S, Weissfeld L, Curtis JR, et al. Prevalence of and factors related to discordance about prognosis between physicians and surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients. JAMA. 2016;315:2086–94.
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
|
|