Chiarchiaro Jared, White Douglas B, Ernecoff Natalie C, Buddadhumaruk Praewpannarai, Schuster Rachel A, Arnold Robert M
1Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 2Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 3Center for Bioethics and Health Law, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 4Program on Ethics and Decision Making in Critical Illness, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 5Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Crit Care Med. 2016 May;44(5):934-42. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001583.
Conflict is common between physicians and surrogate decision makers around end-of-life care in ICU. Involving experts in conflict management improve outcomes, but little is known about what differences in conflict management styles may explain the benefit. We used simulation to examine potential differences in how palliative care specialists manage conflict with surrogates about end-of-life treatment decisions in ICUs compared with intensivists.
Subjects participated in a high-fidelity simulation of conflict with a surrogate in an ICU. In this simulation, a medical actor portrayed a surrogate decision maker during an ICU family meeting who refuses to follow an advance directive that clearly declines advanced life-sustaining therapies. We audiorecorded the simulation encounters and applied a coding framework to quantify conflict management behaviors, which was organized into two categories: task-focused communication and relationship building. We used negative binomial modeling to determine whether there were differences between palliative care specialists' and intensivists' use of task-focused communication and relationship building.
Single academic medical center ICU.
Palliative care specialists and intensivists.
None.
We enrolled 11 palliative care specialists and 25 intensivists. The palliative care specialists were all attending physicians. The intensivist group consisted of 11 attending physicians, 9 pulmonary and critical care fellows, and 5 internal medicine residents rotating in the ICU. We excluded five residents from the primary analysis in order to reduce confounding due to training level. Physicians' mean age was 37 years with a mean of 8 years in practice. Palliative care specialists used 55% fewer task-focused communication statements (incidence rate ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83; p = 0.005) and 48% more relationship-building statements (incidence rate ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.89-2.46; p = 0.13) compared with intensivists.
We found that palliative care specialists engage in less task-focused communication when managing conflict with surrogates compared with intensivists. These differences may help explain the benefit of palliative care involvement in conflict and could be the focus of interventions to improve clinicians' conflict resolution skills.
在重症监护病房(ICU)临终关怀方面,医生与替代决策者之间的冲突很常见。让冲突管理专家参与进来可改善结果,但对于冲突管理方式的哪些差异可能解释这种益处却知之甚少。我们通过模拟研究与重症监护医生相比,姑息治疗专家在ICU临终治疗决策中与替代决策者管理冲突的方式可能存在的潜在差异。
受试者参与了在ICU与替代决策者发生冲突的高保真模拟。在该模拟中,一名医疗演员在ICU家属会议期间扮演替代决策者,拒绝遵循明确拒绝高级生命维持治疗的预先指示。我们对模拟过程进行录音,并应用一个编码框架来量化冲突管理行为,该框架分为两类:以任务为重点的沟通和建立关系。我们使用负二项式模型来确定姑息治疗专家和重症监护医生在以任务为重点的沟通和建立关系的使用上是否存在差异。
单一学术医疗中心的ICU。
姑息治疗专家和重症监护医生。
无。
我们招募了11名姑息治疗专家和25名重症监护医生。姑息治疗专家均为主治医生。重症监护医生组包括11名主治医生、9名肺科和重症监护研究员以及5名在ICU轮转的内科住院医师。为减少因培训水平造成的混杂因素,我们在主要分析中排除了5名住院医师。医生的平均年龄为37岁,平均从业年限为8年。与重症监护医生相比,姑息治疗专家以任务为重点的沟通陈述少55%(发病率比,0.55;95%置信区间,0.36 - 0.83;p = 0.005),建立关系的陈述多48%(发病率比,1.48;95%置信区间,0.89 - 2.46;p = 0.13)。
我们发现,与重症监护医生相比,姑息治疗专家在与替代决策者管理冲突时进行的以任务为重点的沟通较少。这些差异可能有助于解释姑息治疗参与冲突的益处,并且可能成为改善临床医生冲突解决技能干预措施的重点。