Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2012 Aug;40(8):2327-34. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182536a63.
Shared decision making is inadequate in intensive care units. Decision aids can improve decision making quality, though their role in an intensive care units setting is unclear. We aimed to develop and pilot test a decision aid for shared decision makers of patients undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation.
Intensive care units at three medical centers.
Fifty-three surrogate decision makers and 58 physicians.
We developed the decision aid using defined methodological guidelines. After an iterative revision process, formative cognitive testing was performed among surrogate-physician dyads. Next, we compared the decision aid to usual care control in a prospective, before/after design study.
Primary outcomes were physician-surrogate discordance for expected patient survival, comprehension of relevant medical information, and the quality of communication. Compared to control, the intervention group had lower surrogate-physician discordance (7 [10] vs. 43 [21]), greater comprehension (11.4 [0.7] vs. 6.1 [3.7]), and improved quality of communication (8.7 [1.3] vs. 8.4 [1.3]) (all p<.05) post-intervention. Hospital costs were lower in the intervention group ($110,609 vs. $178,618; p=.044); mortality did not differ by group (38% vs. 50%, p=.95). Ninety-four percent of the surrogates and 100% of the physicians reported that the decision aid was useful in decision making.
We developed a prolonged mechanical ventilation decision aid that is feasible, acceptable, and associated with both improved decision-making quality and less resource utilization. Further evaluation using a randomized controlled trial design is required to evaluate the decision aid's effect on long-term patient and surrogate outcomes.
在重症监护病房中,共同决策并不充分。决策辅助工具可以提高决策质量,但在重症监护病房环境中的作用尚不清楚。我们旨在为接受长时间机械通气的患者的共同决策者开发和试点测试一种决策辅助工具。
三家医疗中心的重症监护病房。
53 名替代决策制定者和 58 名医生。
我们使用明确的方法学指南开发了决策辅助工具。经过迭代修订过程,在替代-医生二人组中进行了形成性认知测试。接下来,我们在前瞻性、前后设计研究中比较了决策辅助工具与常规护理对照组。
主要结果是医生-替代者对预期患者生存的期望分歧、对相关医学信息的理解以及沟通质量。与对照组相比,干预组的替代者-医生分歧较小(7 [10] 与 43 [21]),理解能力更高(11.4 [0.7] 与 6.1 [3.7]),沟通质量也有所提高(8.7 [1.3] 与 8.4 [1.3])(均 p<.05)。干预组的医院成本较低(110609 美元与 178618 美元;p=.044);两组死亡率无差异(38%与 50%;p=.95)。94%的替代者和 100%的医生报告说,决策辅助工具在决策中有帮助。
我们开发了一种用于长时间机械通气的决策辅助工具,具有可行性、可接受性,并与决策质量的提高和资源利用的减少相关。需要进一步使用随机对照试验设计来评估决策辅助工具对长期患者和替代者结局的影响。