(2019) Understanding and improving decision-making around referral and admissions to intensive care : a mixed methods study. Health Services and Delivery Research . (In Press)

PDF WRAP- understanding-improving-decision-making-around-referral-admissions-intensive-care-Slowther-2019.pdf - Accepted Version Embargoed item. Restricted access to Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (6Mb)

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Background: Intensive care treatment can be life-saving but is invasive and distressing for patients receiving them, and not always successful. Deciding whether or not a patient will benefit from intensive care is a difficult clinical and ethical challenge.
Objectives: To explore the decision-making process around referral and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and develop and test an intervention to improve it.
Methods: A mixed methods study including:
a) Two systematic reviews investigating factors associated with decisions to admit to ICU and the experiences of clinicians, patients and families.
b) Observation of decisions and interviews with ICU doctors, referring doctors, patients and families in six NHS Trusts in the UK Midlands.
c) A Choice Experiment survey distributed to UK ICU consultants and Critical Care Outreach Nurses. Participants eliciting their preferences for factors used in decision-making for ICU admission..
d) Development of a Decision Support Intervention (DSI) informed by the previous work streams, including an ethical framework for decision-making, supporting referral and decision support forms and patient and family information leaflets. Implementation feasibility was tested in three NHS Trusts.
e) Development and testing of a tool to evaluate the ethical quality of decision-making related to ICU admission, based on assessment of patient records. The tool was tested for inter-rater and inter-site reliability in 120 patient records.

Results:
Influences on decision-making identified in the systematic review and ethnographic study included age, presence of chronic illness, functional status, presence of DNACPR order, referring specialty, referrer seniority, and ICU bed availability. ICU doctors used a gestalt assessment of the patient in making decisions. The CE showed age was the most important factor in consultant and CCOR nurses preferences for admission. The ethnographic study illuminated the complexity of the decision-making process, the importance of inter-professional relationships, and good communication between teams and with patients and families. Doctors found it difficult to articulate and balance benefits and burdens of ICU treatment for a patient. There was low uptake of the DSI although doctors who used it noted that it improved articulation of reasons for decisions and communication with patients.
Limitations:
Limitations existed in each of the component studies: for example we had difficulty in recruiting patient and family in our qualitative work. However, the project benefitted from a mixed method approach which mitigated for potential limitations of the component studies.
Conclusions:
Decision-making surrounding referral and admission to ICU is complex: This study has provided evidence and resources to help clinicians and organisations aiming to improve decision-making for, and ultimately the care of, critically ill patients.
Future Work:
Further research is needed into decision-making practices, particularly in how best to engage with patients and families during the decision process. The development and evaluation of training for clinicians involved in these decisions should be a priority for future work.
Funding details:
This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research. (project number 13/10/14). Further information available at: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr/131014 The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit.

The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HSD&R programme or the Department of Health.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BJ Ethics R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Social Science & Systems in Health (SSSH) Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Journal or Publication Title:	Health Services and Delivery Research
Publisher:	NIHR Journals Library
ISSN:	2050-4349
Official Date:	22 January 2019
Dates:	Date Event 22 January 2019 Accepted
Date of first compliant deposit:	26 February 2019
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	In Press
Publisher Statement:	© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 20XX [year of publication]. This work was produced by [name of author/organisation] under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to NETSCC.
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Copyright Holders:	National Institute of Health Research
Funder:	National Institute of Health Research Health Service and Development Research Programme
Grant number:	13/10/14
Related URLs:	Publisher

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item