ArticleChest2024
Achieving Goals of Care Decisions in Chronic Critical Illness: A Multi-Institutional Qualitative Study.
Article in Chest, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinicians' Perspectives on Strengthening Interprofessional Teamwork to Support Surrogate Decision-Makers of Critically Ill Patients in ICUs.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- A Qualitative Study of the Experience of Multidisciplinary Teamwork in Chronic Critical Illness Patients.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 11 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians, patients, and families alike perceive a need to improve how goals of care (GOC) decisions occur in chronic critical illness (CCI), but little is currently known about this decision-making process. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do intensivists from various health systems facilitate decision-making about GOC for patients with CCI? What are barriers to, and facilitators of, this decision-making process? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of intensivists from the United States and Canada using a mental models approach adapted from decision science. We analyzed transcripts inductively using qualitative description.
resultsWe interviewed 29 intensivists from six institutions. Participants across all sites described GOC decision-making in CCI as a complex, longitudinal, and iterative process that involved substantial preparatory work, numerous stakeholders, and multiple family meetings. Intensivists required considerable time to collect information on prior events and conversations, and to arrive at a prognostic consensus with other involved physicians prior to meeting with families. Many intensivists stressed the importance of scheduling multiple family meetings to build trust and relationships prior to explicitly discussing GOC. Physician-identified barriers to GOC decision-making included 1-week staffing models, limited time and cognitive bandwidth, difficulty eliciting patient values, and interpersonal challenges with care team members or families. Potential facilitators included scheduled family meetings at regular intervals, greater interprofessional involvement in decisions, and consistent messaging from care team members.
interpretationIntensivists described a complex time- and labor-intensive group process to achieve GOC decision-making in CCI. System-level interventions that improve how information is shared between physicians and decrease logistical and relational barriers to timely and consistent communication are key to improving GOC decision-making in CCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.