Titrating Clinician Directiveness in Serious Pediatric Illness

Abstract

Shared decision-making in pediatrics is based on a trusting partnership between parents, clinicians, and sometimes patients, wherein all stakeholders explore values and weigh options. Within that framework, clinicians often have an obligation to provide guidance. We describe a range of ethically justifiable clinician directiveness that could be appropriate in helping families navigate serious pediatric illness. The presentation of “default” options and informed nondissent as potential strategies are discussed. The degree of clinician directiveness may vary even for decisions that are equally “shared.” A myriad of factors affect how directive a clinician can or should be. Some of the most important factors are the degree of prognostic certainty and the family’s desire for guidance, but others are important as well, such as the urgency of the decision; the relationship between the clinician, patient, and family; the degree of team consensus; and the burdens and benefits of therapy. Directiveness should be considered an important tool in a clinician’s armamentarium and is one that can be used to support families in stressful and emotionally difficult situations.