From the Departments of Neurology (S.M., K.G.), Anesthesiology (S.M.), Surgery (S.M.), and Population and Quantitative Health Sciences (J.F.), University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester; and Division of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology (Q.Z., J.J.P., D.Y.H.), Department of Neurology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Neurology. 2022 Oct 3;99(14):e1446-e1455. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000200937.
Breakdowns in clinician-family communication in neurologic intensive care units (neuroICUs) are common, particularly for goals-of-care decisions to continue or withdraw life-sustaining treatments while considering long-term prognoses. Shared decision-making interventions (decision aids [DAs]) may prevent this problem and increase patient-centered care, yet none are currently available. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived usefulness of a DA for goals-of-care communication with surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) after hemispheric acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or traumatic brain injury.
We conducted a parallel-arm, unblinded, patient-level randomized, controlled pilot trial at 2 tertiary care US neuroICUs and randomized surrogate participants 1:1 to a tailored paper-based DA provided to surrogates before clinician-family goals-of-care meetings or usual care (no intervention before clinician-family meetings). The primary outcomes were feasibility of deploying the DA (recruitment, participation, and retention), acceptability, and perceived usefulness of the DA among surrogates. Exploratory outcomes included outcome of surrogate goals-of-care decision, code status changes during admission, patients' 3-month functional outcome, and surrogates' 3-month validated psychological outcomes.
We approached 83 surrogates of 58 patients and enrolled 66 surrogates of 41 patients (80% consent rate). Of 66 surrogates, 45 remained in the study at 3 months (68% retention). Of the 33 surrogates randomized to intervention, 27 were able to receive the DA, and 25 subsequently read the DA (93% participation). Eighty-two percent rated the DA's acceptability as good or excellent (median acceptability score 2 [IQR 2-3]); 96% found it useful for goals-of-care decision making. In the DA group, there was a trend toward fewer comfort care decisions (27% vs 56%, = 0.1) and fewer code status changes (no change, 73% vs 44%, = 0.02). At 3 months, fewer patients in the DA group had died (33% vs 69%, = 0.05; median Glasgow Outcome Scale 3 vs1, = 0.05). Regardless of intervention, 3-month psychological outcomes were significantly worse among surrogates who had chosen continuation of care.
A goals-of-care DA to support ICU shared decision making for patients with SABI is feasible to deploy and well perceived by surrogates. A larger trial is feasible to conduct, although surrogates who select continuation of care deserve additional psychosocial support.
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03833375.
This study provides Class IV evidence that the use of a DA explaining the goals-of-care decision and the treatment options is acceptable and useful to surrogates of incapacitated critically ill patients with ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or traumatic brain injury.
神经重症监护病房(neuroICU)中临床医生与患者家属之间的沟通障碍很常见,尤其是在考虑长期预后的情况下,做出继续或停止维持生命的治疗措施的目标治疗决策时。共同决策干预措施(决策辅助工具[DAs])可能会预防这个问题,并增加以患者为中心的护理,但目前尚无此类工具。我们评估了一种针对目标治疗沟通的决策辅助工具对于因半球性急性缺血性脑卒中、脑出血或创伤性脑损伤而导致严重急性脑损伤(SABI)的危重症患者的替代决策人的可行性、可接受性和感知有用性。
我们在 2 家美国三级护理神经重症监护病房进行了一项平行臂、非盲、患者水平随机对照的初步试验,并将替代决策者以 1:1 的比例随机分配到有针对性的纸质决策辅助工具中,这些工具在临床医生与患者家属进行目标治疗会议之前提供给替代决策者,或采用常规护理(在临床医生与患者家属会议之前不进行干预)。主要结局是决策辅助工具的部署可行性(招募、参与和保留)、可接受性和替代决策者的感知有用性。探索性结局包括替代决策者的目标治疗决策结果、入院期间的代码状态变化、患者 3 个月的功能结局以及替代决策者 3 个月的经过验证的心理结局。
我们共接触了 58 名患者的 83 名替代决策者,并纳入了 41 名患者的 66 名替代决策者(80%的同意率)。在 66 名替代决策者中,有 45 名在 3 个月时仍留在研究中(68%的保留率)。在随机分配到干预组的 33 名替代决策者中,有 27 名能够接受决策辅助工具,其中 25 名随后阅读了决策辅助工具(93%的参与率)。82%的替代决策者认为决策辅助工具的可接受性良好或优秀(中位数可接受性评分 2[四分位距 2-3]);96%的替代决策者认为决策辅助工具对于目标治疗决策有用。在决策辅助工具组中,倾向于做出更少的舒适护理决策(27%比 56%, = 0.1)和更少的代码状态变化(无变化,73%比 44%, = 0.02)。在 3 个月时,决策辅助工具组的死亡患者更少(33%比 69%, = 0.05;中位格拉斯哥预后量表 3 比 1, = 0.05)。无论干预措施如何,选择继续治疗的替代决策者在 3 个月时的心理结局显著更差。
一种用于支持 SABI 患者 ICU 共同决策的目标治疗决策辅助工具易于部署,并得到替代决策者的认可。可以进行更大规模的试验,但选择继续治疗的替代决策者需要额外的社会心理支持。
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03833375。
这项研究提供了 IV 级证据,表明使用解释目标治疗决策和治疗选择的决策辅助工具对因缺血性脑卒中、脑出血或创伤性脑损伤而导致严重急性脑损伤的无能力危重症患者的替代决策者是可接受和有用的。