The burdens of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have fallen disproportionately on disadvantaged groups, including the poor and Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities. There is ...substantial concern that the use of existing ICU triage protocols to allocate scarce ventilators and critical care resources-most of which are designed to save as many lives as possible-may compound these inequities. As governments and health systems revisit their triage guidelines in the context of impending resource shortages, scholars have advocated a range of alternative allocation strategies, including the use of a random lottery to give all patients in need an equal chance of ICU treatment. However, both the save-the-most-lives approach and random allocation are seriously flawed. In this Perspective, we argue that ICU triage policies should simultaneously promote population health outcomes and mitigate health inequities. These ethical goals are sometimes in conflict, which will require balancing the goals of maximizing the number of lives saved and distributing health benefits equitably across society. We recommend three strategies to mitigate health inequities during ICU triage: introducing a correction factor into patients' triage scores to reduce the impact of baseline structural inequities; giving heightened priority to individuals in essential, high-risk occupations; and rejecting use of longer-term life expectancy and categorical exclusions as allocation criteria. We present a practical triage framework that incorporates these strategies and attends to the twin public health goals of promoting population health and social justice.
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.
Shared decision making is endorsed by critical care organizations; however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote ...partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills.
The American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society were included in the statement.
Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable, including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies.
Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate.
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.
...Population-based cohort study using data from the United States Healthcare Costs and Utilization Project from 2004 to 2009.
Acute care hospitals in Massachusetts, North Carolina, Nebraska, New York, and Washington.
Adult and pediatric patients meeting a consensus-derived definition for chronic critical illness, which included one of six eligible clinical conditions (prolonged acute mechanical ventilation, tracheotomy, stroke, traumatic brain injury, sepsis, or severe wounds) plus at least 8 days in an ICU.
None.
Out of 3,235,741 admissions to an ICU during the study period, 246,151 (7.6%) met the consensus definition for chronic critical illness. The most common eligibility conditions were prolonged acute mechanical ventilation (72.0% of eligible admissions) and sepsis (63.7% of eligible admissions). Among patients meeting chronic critical illness criteria through sepsis, the infections were community acquired in 48.5% and hospital acquired in 51.5%. In-hospital mortality was 30.9% with little change over the study period. The overall population-based prevalence was 34.4 per 100,000. The prevalence varied substantially with age, peaking at 82.1 per 100,000 individuals 75-79 years old but then declining coincident with a rise in mortality before day 8 in otherwise eligible patients. Extrapolating to the entire United States, for 2009, we estimated a total of 380,001 cases; 107,880 in-hospital deaths and $26 billion in hospital-related costs.
Using a consensus-based definition, the prevalence, hospital mortality, and costs of chronic critical illness are substantial. Chronic critical illness is particularly common in the elderly although in very old patients the prevalence declines, in part because of an increase in early mortality among potentially eligible patients.
Misperceptions about prognosis by individuals making decisions for incapacitated critically ill patients (surrogates) are common and often attributed to poor comprehension of medical information.
To ...determine the prevalence of and factors related to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis in intensive care units (ICUs).
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.
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).
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).
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.
Rationing is the allocation of scarce resources, which in health care necessarily entails withholding potentially beneficial treatments from some individuals. Rationing is unavoidable because need is ...limitless and resources are not. How rationing occurs is important because it not only affects individual lives but also expresses society's most important values. This article discusses the following topics: (1) the inevitability of rationing of social goods, including medical care; (2) types of rationing; (3) ethical principles and procedures for fair allocation; and (4) whether rationing ICU care to those near the end of life would result in substantial cost savings.
PDF
