Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27294981›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2016

Intensivist-reported Facilitators and Barriers to Discussing Post-Discharge Outcomes with Intensive Care Unit Surrogates. A Qualitative Study.

Alison E Turnbull, Wesley E Davis, Dale M Needham, Douglas B White, Michelle N Eakin

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03797313 (Observational Study of Expected Acute Respiratory Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03797313 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Observational Study of Expected Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF) Recovery

TypeobservationalSponsorJohns Hopkins UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled180ConditionsAcute Respiratory Failure, Post Intensive Care Syndrome
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alison E Turnbull1 Outcomes after Critical Illness and Surgery Group.ORCID 0000-0002-1564-6547
Wesley E Davis1 Outcomes after Critical Illness and Surgery Group.
Dale M Needham1 Outcomes after Critical Illness and Surgery Group.
Douglas B White5 Center for Bioethics and Health Law, Department of Critical Care Medicine.
Michelle N Eakin1 Outcomes after Critical Illness and Surgery Group.

Funding

Identifying Effective Strategies to Disclose Prognosis in Patients with ARDSR01HL094553 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WHITE, DOUGLAS B · 2009 to 2012
$2.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL094553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleIntensive care unit (ICU) patients' expected post-discharge outcomes are rarely discussed in family meetings despite this information being centrally important to patients and their families.

objectivesTo characterize intensivist-identified barriers and facilitators to discussing post-discharge outcomes with surrogates of ICU patients.

methodsQualitative study conducted via one-on-one, semistructured telephone interviews with 23 intensivists from 20 hospitals with accreditation council for graduate medical education-accredited critical care medicine programs in 16 states. A limited application of grounded theory methods was used to code transcribed interviews and identify themes and illustrative quotes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsIntensivists reported tension between their professional responsibility to discuss likely functional outcomes versus uncertainty about their ability to predict those outcomes for an individual patient. They cited three main barriers as limiting their ability to conduct conversations about post-discharge outcomes with ICU surrogates: (1) incorrectly optimistic expectations for recovery among ICU surrogates, (2) having little or no contact with their patients after ICU discharge, and (3) minimal confidence applying existing outcomes research to individual patients. Despite these barriers, experience talking to ICU surrogates, seeing ICU survivors in the outpatient setting, and trusted research on functional outcomes were identified as important facilitators to discussing likely patient outcomes with surrogates. Intensivists generally welcomed questions from surrogates about post-discharge outcomes as opportunities to initiate conversations about prognosis and patient values.

conclusionsIn this sample of intensivists from 20 academic hospitals, experience conducting conversations with surrogates and interactions with ICU survivors as outpatients were identified as facilitating discussion of expected post-discharge outcomes while optimistic surrogate expectations and prognostic uncertainty were barriers. There was tension between self-perceived ability to prognosticate and belief in a professional obligation to discuss patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingCommunication BarriersPatient DischargeProfessional-Family RelationsCritical CareFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsInterviews as TopicMalePatient-Centered CarePrognosisQualitative ResearchTreatment Outcomecommunication barrierscritical carepatient-centered careprognosissurrogate decision-making

Identifiers

PMID27294981
PMCPMC5059504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.