Hospital-Based Physicians\u27 Intubation Decisions and Associated Mental Models when Managing a Critically and Terminally Ill Older Patient.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the intensity of acute care treatment at the end of life is influenced more strongly by hospital and provider characteristics than patient preferences. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe physicians\u27 mental models (i.e., thought processes) when encountering a simulated critically and terminally ill older patient, and to compare those models based on whether their treatment plan was patient preference-concordant or preference-discordant. METHODS: Seventy-three hospital-based physicians from 3 academic medical centers engaged in a simulated patient encounter and completed a mental model interview while watching the video recording of their encounter. We used an expert model to code the interviews. We then used Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare the weighted mental model themes of physicians who provided preference-concordant treatment with those who provided preference-discordant treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-six (90%) physicians provided preference-concordant treatment and 7 (10%) provided preference-discordant treatment (i.e., they intubated the patient). Physicians who intubated the patient were more likely to emphasize the reversible and emergent nature of the patient situation (z = -2.111, P = 0.035), their own comfort (z = -2.764, P = 0.006), and rarely focused on explicit patient preferences (z = 2.380, P = 0.017). LIMITATIONS: Post-decisional interviewing with audio/video prompting may induce hindsight bias. The expert model has not yet been validated and may not be exhaustive. The small sample size limits generalizability and power. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based physicians providing preference-discordant used a different mental model for decision making for a critically and terminally ill simulated case. These differences may offer targets for future interventions to promote preference-concordant care for seriously ill patients

The Language of End-of-Life Decision Making: A Simulation Study

Background: Framing is known to influence decision making. Objective: The study objective was to describe language used by physicians when discussing treatment options with a critically and terminally ill elder. Methods: High-fidelity simulation was used, involving an elder with end-stage cancer and life-threatening hypoxia, followed by a debriefing interview. Subjects were hospitalist, emergency medicine, and critical care physicians from three academic medical centers. Measures were observation of encounters in real time followed by content analysis of simulation and debriefing interview transcripts. During the simulation we identified the first mention (?broaching?) of principal treatment options?intubation and mechanical ventilation (life-sustaining treatment [LST]) and palliation in anticipation of death (palliation)?and used constant comparative methods to identify language used. We identified physician opinions about the use of LST in this clinical context during the debriefing interviews, and compared language used with opinions. Results: Among 114 physician subjects, 106 discussed LST, 86 discussed palliation, and 84 discussed both. We identified five frames: will (decided), must (necessary), should (convention), could (option), and ask (elicitation of preferences). Physicians broached LST differently than palliation (p<0.01), most commonly framing LST as necessary (53%), while framing palliation as optional (49%). Among physicians who framed LST as imperative (will or must), 16 (30%) felt intubation would be inappropriate in this clinical situation. Conclusions: In this high-fidelity simulation experiment involving a critically and terminally ill elder, the majority of physicians framed the available options in ways implying LST was the expected or preferred choice. Framing of treatment options could influence ultimate treatment decisions.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140120/1/jpm.2015.0089.pd

A Pilot Study of Neonatologists' Decision-Making Roles in Delivery Room Resuscitation Counseling for Periviable Births

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about neonatologists' roles in helping families navigate the difficult decision to attempt or withhold resuscitation for a neonate delivering at the threshold of viability. Therefore, we aimed to describe the "decision-making role" of neonatologists in simulated periviable counseling sessions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded simulation encounters and post-encounter debriefing interviews collected as part of a single-center simulation study of neonatologists' resuscitation counseling practices in the face of ruptured membranes at 23 weeks gestation. We trained standardized patients to request a recommendation if the physician presented multiple treatment options. We coded each encounter for communication behaviors, applying an adapted, previously developed coding scheme to classify physicians into four decision-making roles (informative, facilitative, collaborative, or directive). We also coded post-simulation debriefing interviews for responses to the open-ended prompt: "During this encounter, what did you feel was your role in the management decision-making process?" RESULTS: Fifteen neonatologists (33% of the division) participated in the study; audio-recorded debriefing interviews were available for 13. We observed 9 (60%) take an informative role, providing medical information only; 2 (13%) take a facilitative role, additionally eliciting the patient's values; 3 (20%) take a collaborative role, additionally engaging the patient in deliberation and providing a recommendation; and 1 (7%) take a directive role, making a treatment decision independent of the patient. Almost all (10/13, 77%) of the neonatologists described their intended role as informative. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatologists did not routinely elicit preferences, engage in deliberation, or provide treatment recommendations-even in response to requests for recommendations. These findings suggest there may be a gap between policy recommendations calling for shared decision making and actual clinical practice

"Doctor, what would you do?": physicians' responses to patient inquiries about periviable delivery

OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively assess obstetricians' and neonatologists' responses to standardized patients (SPs) asking "What would you do?" during periviable counseling encounters. METHODS: An exploratory single-center simulation study. SPs, portraying a pregnant woman presenting with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, were instructed to ask, "What would you do?" if presented options regarding delivery management or resuscitation. Responses were independently reviewed and classified. RESULTS: We identified five response patterns: 'Disclose' (9/28), 'Don't Know' (11/28), 'Deflect' (23/28), 'Decline' (2/28), and 'Ignore' (2/28). Most physicians utilized more than one response pattern (22/28). Physicians 'deflected' the question by: restating or offering additional medical information; answering with a question; evoking a hypothetical patient; or redirecting the SP to other sources of support. When compared with neonatologists, obstetricians (40% vs. 15%) made personal or professional disclosures more often. Though both specialties readily acknowledged the importance of values in making a decision, only one physician attempted to elicit the patient's values. CONCLUSION: "What would you do?" represented a missed opportunity for values elicitation. Interventions are needed to facilitate values elicitation and shared decision-making in periviable care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If physicians fail to address patients' values and goals, they lack the information needed to develop patient-centered plans of care

Using Simulation to Assess the Influence of Race and Insurer on Shared Decision-making in Periviable Counseling

Introduction: Sociodemographic differences have been observed in the treatment of extremely premature (periviable) neonates, but the source of this variation is not well understood. We assessed the feasibility of using simulation to test the effect of maternal race and insurance status on shared decision making (SDM) in periviable counseling. Methods: We conducted a 2 × 2 factorial simulation experiment in which obstetricians and neonatologists counseled 2 consecutive standardized patients diagnosed with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, counterbalancing race (black/white) and insurance status using random permutation. We assessed verisimilitude of the simulation in semistructured debriefing interviews. We coded physician communication related to resuscitation, mode of delivery, and steroid decisions using a 9-point SDM coding framework and then compared communication scores by standardized patient race and insurer using analysis of variance. Results: Sixteen obstetricians and 15 neonatologists participated; 71% were women, 84% were married, and 75% were parents; 91% of the physicians rated the simulation as highly realistic. Overall, SDM scores were relatively high, with means ranging from 6.4 to 7.9 (of 9). There was a statistically significant interaction between race and insurer for SDM related to steroid use and mode of delivery (P < 0.01 and P = 0.01, respectively). Between-group comparison revealed nonsignificant differences (P = <0.10) between the SDM scores for privately insured black patients versus privately insured white patients, Medicaid-insured white patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients, and privately insured black patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients. Conclusions: This study confirms that simulation is a feasible method for studying sociodemographic effects on periviable counseling. Shared decision making may occur differentially based on patients’ sociodemographic characteristics and deserves further study

Survival after Acute Hemodialysis in Pennsylvania, 2005- 2007: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Abstract Background: Little is known about acute hemodialysis in the US. Here we describe predictors of receipt of acute hemodialysis in one state and estimate the marginal impact of acute hemodialysis on survival after accounting for confounding due to illness severity