scholarly journals Decision-making in intensive care medicine – A review

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona R James ◽  
Nicola Power ◽  
Shondipon Laha

Decision-making by intensivists around accepting patients to intensive care units is a complex area, with often high-stakes, difficult, emotive decisions being made with limited patient information, high uncertainty about outcomes and extreme pressure to make these decisions quickly. This is exacerbated by a lack of clear guidelines to help guide this difficult decision-making process, with the onus largely relying on clinical experience and judgement. In addition to uncertainty compounding decision-making at the individual clinical level, it is further complicated at the multi-speciality level for the senior doctors and surgeons referring to intensive care units. This is a systematic review of the existing literature about this decision-making process and the factors that help guide these decisions on both sides of the intensive care unit admission dilemma. We found many studies exist assessing the patient factors correlated with intensive care unit admission decisions. Analysing these together suggests that factors consistently found to be correlated with a decision to admit or refuse a patient from intensive care unit are bed availability, severity of illness, initial ward or team referred from, patient choice, do not resuscitate status, age and functional baseline. Less research has been done on the decision-making process itself and the factors that are important to the accepting intensivists; however, similar themes are seen. Even less research exists on referral decision and demonstrates that in addition to the factors correlated with intensive care unit admission decisions, other wider variables are considered by the referring non-intensivists. No studies are available that investigate the decision-making process in referring non-intensivists or the mismatch of processes and pressure between the two sides of the intensive care unit referral dilemma.

2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (7) ◽  
pp. 1045-1051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maité Garrouste-Orgeas ◽  
Jean-François Timsit ◽  
Luc Montuclard ◽  
Alain Colvez ◽  
Olivier Gattolliat ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 1832-1838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Élie Azoulay ◽  
Frédéric Pochard ◽  
Sylvie Chevret ◽  
Christophe Adrie ◽  
Djilali Annane ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 270-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranveig Lind

Background: Relatives of intensive care unit patients who lack or have reduced capacity to consent are entitled to information and participation in decision-making together with the patient. Practice varies with legislation in different countries. In Norway, crucial decisions such as withdrawing treatment are made by clinicians, usually morally justified to relatives with reference to the principle of non-maleficence. The relatives should, however, be consulted about whether they know what the patient would have wished in the situation. Research objectives: To examine and describe relatives’ experiences of responsibility in the intensive care unit decision-making process. Research design: A secondary analysis of interviews with bereaved relatives of intensive care unit patients was performed, using a narrative analytical approach. Participants and research context: In all, 27 relatives of 21 deceased intensive care unit patients were interviewed about their experiences from the end-of-life decision-making process. Most interviews took place in the participants’ homes, 3–12 months after the patient’s death. Ethical considerations: Based on informed consent, the study was approved by the Data Protection Official of the Norwegian Social Science Data Services and by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics. Findings: The results show that intensive care unit relatives experienced a sense of responsibility in the decision-making process, independently of clinicians’ intention of sparing them. Some found this troublesome. Three different variants of participation were revealed, ranging from paternalism to a more active role for relatives. Discussion: For the study participants, the sense of responsibility reflects the fact that ethics and responsibility are grounded in the individual’s relationship to other people. Relatives need to be included in a continuous dialogue over time to understand decisions and responsibility. Conclusion: Nurses and physicians should acknowledge and address relatives’ sense of responsibility, include them in regular dialogue and help them separate their responsibility from that of the clinicians.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Sobczak ◽  
Aleksandra Dudzik ◽  
Piotr Kruczek ◽  
Przemko Kwinta

Introduction: Umbilical catheterization provides a quick yet demanding central line that can lead to complications seen nowhere else. The aim of our study was to determine whether the repeated ultrasound scanning can influence the catheterization time, prevent some of the catheter-related complications, support the decision-making process and allow prolonged catheterization in patients without an alternative central access route.Methods: A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit. A total of 129 patients and 194 umbilical catheters (119 venous and 75 arterial) were analyzed with a total of 954 scans. Ultrasound screening consisted of 1) assessing the catheter tip, location, movability, and surface and 2) analyzing the catheter trajectory. The outcome variables were defined as 1) catheter dislocation and 2) associated thrombosis.Results: Dislocation of catheter throughout the whole catheterization period was observed in 68% (81/119) of UVCs and 23% (17/75) of UACs. Thrombotic complications were observed in 34.5% (41/119) of UVCs and 12% (9/75) of UACs. 1/3 of UAC-associated thrombi were visible only after catheter removal. 51% (61/119) of UVC patients and 8% (6/75) of UAC patients made a clinical decision regarding the obtained catheter image.Conclusion: Bedside ultrasound imaging of catheters supports the decision-making process related to the catheterization duration, shortening the time if abnormalities are detected and allowing a safer prolonged UC stay when an alternative central line cannot be inserted.


2020 ◽  
pp. 175114371989897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson BF Neto ◽  
Luiz G Marin ◽  
Bruna G de Souza ◽  
Ana LD Moro ◽  
Wagner L Nedel

Introduction Combined antiretroviral therapy has led to significant decreases in morbidity and mortality in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome patients. Survival among these patients admitted to intensive care units has also improved in the last years. However, the prognostic predictors of human immunodeficiency vírus patients in intensive care units have not been adequately studied. The main objective of this study was to evaluate if non-adherence to antiretroviral therapy is a predictor of hospital mortality. Methods A unicentric, retrospective, cohort study composed of patients admitted to a 59-bed mixed intensive care unit including all patients with human immunodeficiency vírus infection. Patients were excluded if exclusive palliative care was established before completing 48 h of intensive care unit admission. Clinical and treatment data were obtained, including demographic records, underlying diseases, Simplified Acute Physiology III score at the time of intensive care unit admission, CD4 lymphocyte count, antiretroviral therapy adherence, admission diagnosis, human immunodeficiency vírus-related diseases, sepsis and use of mechanical ventilation and hemodialysis. The outcome analyzed was hospital mortality. Results Overall, 167 patients were included in the study, and intensive care unit mortality was 34.7%. Multivariate analysis indicated that antiretroviral therapy adherence and the Simplified Acute Physiology 3 score were independently related to hospital mortality. antiretroviral therapy adherence was a protective factor (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.05–0.71; P = 0.01), and Simplified Acute Physiology 3 (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01–1.08; P < 0.01) was associated with increased hospital mortality. Conclusion Non-adherence to antiretroviral therapy is associated with hospital mortality in this population. Highly active antiretroviral therapy non-adherence may be associated with other comorbidities that may be associated with a worst prognosis in this scenario.


2015 ◽  
Vol 105 (5) ◽  
pp. 389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Coenraad Frederik N Koegelenberg ◽  
Cecile A Balkema ◽  
Ynishia Jooste ◽  
Jantjie J Taljaard ◽  
Elvis M Irusen

Author(s):  
Coenraad Frederik Nicolaas Koegelenberg ◽  
Usha Lalla ◽  
Jantjie J Taljaard ◽  
Brian W Allwood ◽  
Elvis M Irusen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document