Barriers and Facilitators to End-of-Life Care Delivery in ICUs: A Qualitative Study
- PMID: 38372629
- PMCID: PMC11218910
- DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006235
Barriers and Facilitators to End-of-Life Care Delivery in ICUs: A Qualitative Study
Abstract
Objectives: To understand frontline ICU clinician's perceptions of end-of-life care delivery in the ICU.
Design: Qualitative observational cross-sectional study.
Setting: Seven ICUs across three hospitals in an integrated academic health system.
Subjects: ICU clinicians (physicians [critical care, palliative care], advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, chaplains).
Interventions: None.
Measurements and main results: In total, 27 semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The research team reviewed all transcripts inductively to develop a codebook. Thematic analysis was conducted through coding, category formulation, and sorting for data reduction to identify central themes. Deductive reasoning facilitated data category formulation and thematic structuring anchored on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model identified that work systems (people, environment, tools, tasks) lead to processes and outcomes. Four themes were barriers or facilitators to end-of-life care. First, work system barriers delayed end-of-life care communication among clinicians as well as between clinicians and families. For example, over-reliance on palliative care people in handling end-of-life discussions prevented timely end-of-life care discussions with families. Second, clinician-level variability existed in end-of-life communication tasks. For example, end-of-life care discussions varied greatly in process and outcomes depending on the clinician leading the conversation. Third, clinician-family-patient priorities or treatment goals were misaligned. Conversely, regular discussion and joint decisions facilitated higher familial confidence in end-of-life care delivery process. These detailed discussions between care teams aligned priorities and led to fewer situations where patients/families received conflicting information. Fourth, clinician moral distress occurred from providing nonbeneficial care. Interviewees reported standardized end-of-life care discussion process incorporated by the people in the work system including patient, family, and clinicians were foundational to delivering end-of-life care that reduced both patient and family suffering, as well as clinician moral distress.
Conclusions: Standardized work system communication tasks may improve end-of life discussion processes between clinicians and families.
Copyright © 2024 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr. Janczewski received support for article research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (5F32HS027724-02). Dr. Ko’s institution received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH); he received support for article research from the NIH. Dr. Yang disclosed work for hire. Dr. Kruser disclosed that her spouse receives funding from AstraZeneca and Radialogica. Dr. Stey received funding from American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, American College of Surgeons, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.
Similar articles
-
End-of-Life Decision-Making for ICU Patients With Limited English Proficiency: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Team Insights.Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct;47(10):1380-1387. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003920. Crit Care Med. 2019. PMID: 31389838 Free PMC article.
-
Exploring the barriers and facilitators of palliative care in the adult intensive care unit from nurses' perspectives in China: A qualitative study.Nurs Crit Care. 2024 Jul;29(4):756-764. doi: 10.1111/nicc.13035. Epub 2024 Feb 5. Nurs Crit Care. 2024. PMID: 38311989
-
Barriers, enablers and challenges to initiating end-of-life care in an Australian intensive care unit context.Aust Crit Care. 2017 May;30(3):161-166. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2016.08.001. Epub 2016 Sep 20. Aust Crit Care. 2017. PMID: 27663843
-
Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jul 8;7(7):CD013116. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013116.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 35802350 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Challenges and facilitators in providing effective end of life care in intensive care units.Nurs Stand. 2019 May 24;34(6):44-50. doi: 10.7748/ns.2019.e11248. Nurs Stand. 2019. PMID: 31468932 Review.
Cited by
-
Assessing palliative care practices in intensive care units and interpreting them using the lens of appropriate care concepts. An umbrella review.Intensive Care Med. 2024 Sep;50(9):1438-1458. doi: 10.1007/s00134-024-07565-7. Epub 2024 Aug 14. Intensive Care Med. 2024. PMID: 39141091 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Angus DC, Barnato AE, Linde-Zwirble WT, et al.; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ICU End-Of-Life Peer Group: Use of intensive care at the end of life in the United States: An epidemiologic study. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:638–643 - PubMed
-
- Flannery L, Ramjan LM, Peters K: End-of-life decisions in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU)–exploring the experiences of ICU nurses and doctors–a critical literature review. Aust Crit Care 2016; 29:97–103 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
