SP - Ethics and Law

Introduction: There are abundant anecdotal reports of healthcare professionals undergoing strain, specifically moral distress, in advance care planning (ACP) related work. This study measured perceptions of morally challenging scenarios (MCS) faced by ACP facilitators and frontline clinicians. Method: An online survey, which is currently ongoing, was sent to the ACP community and also frontline clinicians in Singapore. Purposive and snowballing sampling approaches were employed. Result: Participants rated their opinions on 23 MCS in ACP-related work that were earlier identified from 30 interviews. Findings showed that the top three MCS perceived to go against one’s conscience were: (i) providing treatment not in concordance with wishes of patient, (ii) being uncertain if decisions by family members were driven by ulterior motives and (iii) taking the view of dominant family members as the final decision. Most commonly encountered MCS were dilemmas related to (i) perceived medical best interest, (ii) honouring of patient’s preferred place of death, and (iii) having to deal with collusion. Each of 14 MCS were encountered by at least 50% of our participants and 66% of all who had encountered at least one MCS agreed that their psychological health was affected. Guidance from mentors and support from peers were rated most favourably out of the 15 coping strategies to deal with moral dilemma in ACP work. Coping strategies were largely positive with only a minority favouring the use of alcohol or giving in to demands of patients and families. Conclusion: Findings show those who engaged in ACP-related work encountered a wide variety of MCS and perceived their psychological health as being affected. There is a pressing need to address the sources and risk factors of moral distress in such work, and to enhance the protective factors which can help ACP facilitators and frontline clinicians cope with moral distress successfully.

Introduction

Shared Decision-Making (SDM) is increasingly expected in most aspects of UK medical practice and can be particularly important for older patients to guide goals of care. Treatment Escalation Plans (TEP) summarise medical intervention to be attempted in the event of acute deterioration. Current guidance advocates SDM in TEP but it is unclear whether this is considered practicable by clinicians. This study aims to understand clinicians’ perspectives on SDM in TEP for older patients in the acute medical setting.  

Methods

This was a qualitative study following a relativist constructivist approach. 26 consultant and registrar doctors were recruited from general internal medicine, intensive care, palliative care and emergency medicine. A clinical doctoral student conducted semi-structured interviews including vignettes of older multi-morbid patients with capacity to discuss treatment escalation. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed. Ethics approvals were obtained from the Health Research Authority 22/HRA/4387.

Results

Three themes were generated: ‘An unequal partnership’, ‘Options without equipoise’ and ‘Decisions with shared understanding’. SDM incorporating patient preferences with clinical opinion was seldom perceived to be appropriate. Clinical complexity and use of intuition, together with lack of perceived moral equipoise, motivated clinicians to develop medically acceptable TEPs. Shared understanding with the patient and family and avoiding conflict were important.

Conclusions

Contrary to current guidance, SDM was considered a potential barrier to formulating appropriate TEPs in the acute medical setting. This study suggests potential incompatibility between policies prioritising patient autonomy and the right to make unwise decisions, and those stating clinicians’ prerogative to determine realistic chance of treatment success and not provide intervention considered medically inappropriate.  

Introduction The decision to admit an older patient to the intensive care unit (ICU) should reflect shared goals of care. Resource limitations during the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted challenges in selecting candidates for escalation. Patients and next of kin (NoK) who have experienced ICU are well-placed to reflect on whether the admission was right for them. Objective: To explore older patients’ (65 years) and their loved ones’ views on escalation decision making. Methods Qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with patients, NoK of survivors and NoK of deceased who experienced UK ICU admission with Covid-19 respiratory failure between March 2020 and February 2021. A preliminary questionnaire was used to maximise sample diversity of age, sex, ethnicity, survival, decision regret and impact of event scores. Interview data were collected via video conferencing or telephone. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. Results 30 participants were interviewed. Five themes were identified: ‘Inevitability’ - a sense that the illness and its management are out of the control of the patient or their loved one; ‘Disconnect’ - differences between hospital and lay person narratives; challenges to bridging that gap included effective communication aided by technology; ‘Acceptance’ - of the consequences, good or bad, of an intensive care admission as unalterable; ‘Beyond comprehension’ - participants had not contemplated ill health or ICU prior to admission and even with the benefit of hindsight struggled to describe which potential outcomes would be acceptable or unacceptable if they needed to be involved in similar decision-making around escalation in the future; ‘Covid-19’ - unique impact of a pandemic. Conclusion This study, which includes bereaved NoK as well as patients and NoK of survivors, adds perspective to inform decision making regarding treatment escalation of older people.