Prevalence and predictors of shared decision-making in goals-of-care clinician-family meetings for critically ill neurologic patients: a multi-center mixed-methods study
-
Published:2023-10-21
Issue:1
Volume:27
Page:
-
ISSN:1364-8535
-
Container-title:Critical Care
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Crit Care
Author:
Fleming Victoria,Prasad Abhinav,Ge Connie,Crawford Sybil,Meraj Shazeb,Hough Catherine L.,Lo Bernard,Carson Shannon S.,Steingrub Jay,White Douglas B.,Muehlschlegel Susanne
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Shared decision-making is a joint process where patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians make health choices based on evidence and preferences. We aimed to determine the extent and predictors of shared decision-making for goals-of-care discussions for critically ill neurological patients, which is crucial for patient-goal-concordant care but currently unknown.
Methods
We analyzed 72 audio-recorded routine clinician-family meetings during which goals-of-care were discussed from seven US hospitals. These occurred for 67 patients with 72 surrogates and 29 clinicians; one hospital provided 49/72 (68%) of the recordings. Using a previously validated 10-element shared decision-making instrument, we quantified the extent of shared decision-making in each meeting. We measured clinicians’ and surrogates’ characteristics and prognostic estimates for the patient’s hospital survival and 6-month independent function using post-meeting questionnaires. We calculated clinician-family prognostic discordance, defined as ≥ 20% absolute difference between the clinician’s and surrogate’s estimates. We applied mixed-effects regression to identify independent associations with greater shared decision-making.
Results
The median shared decision-making score was 7 (IQR 5–8). Only 6% of meetings contained all 10 shared decision-making elements. The most common elements were “discussing uncertainty”(89%) and “assessing family understanding”(86%); least frequent elements were “assessing the need for input from others”(36%) and “eliciting the context of the decision”(33%). Clinician-family prognostic discordance was present in 60% for hospital survival and 45% for 6-month independent function. Univariate analyses indicated associations between greater shared decision-making and younger clinician age, fewer years in practice, specialty (medical-surgical critical care > internal medicine > neurocritical care > other > trauma surgery), and higher clinician-family prognostic discordance for hospital survival. After adjustment, only higher clinician-family prognostic discordance for hospital survival remained independently associated with greater shared decision-making (p = 0.029).
Conclusion
Fewer than 1 in 10 goals-of-care clinician-family meetings for critically ill neurological patients contained all shared decision-making elements. Our findings highlight gaps in shared decision-making. Interventions promoting shared decision-making for high-stakes decisions in these patients may increase patient-value congruent care; future studies should also examine whether they will affect decision quality and surrogates’ health outcomes.
Funder
American Academy of Neurology Medical Student Research Scholarship
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
National Institute of Nursing Research
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Massachusetts
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
Reference42 articles.
1. Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Moderate-Severe TBI Statistics: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention; 2021 [updated 5/12/2021. https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/moderate-severe/index.html
2. Tsao CW, Aday AW, Almarzooq ZI, Alonso A, Beaton AZ, Bittencourt MS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2022 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation. 2022;145(8):e153–639.
3. Feigin VL, Vos T, Nichols E, Owolabi MO, Carroll WM, Dichgans M, et al. The global burden of neurological disorders: translating evidence into policy. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(3):255–65.
4. Creutzfeldt CJ, Longstreth WT, Holloway RG. Predicting decline and survival in severe acute brain injury: the fourth trajectory. BMJ. 2015;351: h3904.
5. Goostrey K, Muehlschlegel S. Prognostication and shared decision making in neurocritical care. BMJ. 2022;377: e060154.