Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T21:39:59.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 19 - Measuring and Evaluating Shared Decision-Making in the Intensive Care Unit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2021

By
Alison E. Turnbull  and
Jacqueline M. Kruser
Edited by
Matthew N. Jaffa  and
David Y. Hwang
Matthew N. Jaffa
Affiliation:
Hartford Hospital, Connecticut
David Y. Hwang
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Shared experiences are inherently challenging to measure and evaluate, and shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of critical illness is no exception. The shared nature of a decision is an abstract idea, or latent construct. Declaring a specific decision to have been shared requires knowing how multiple parties viewed their roles in this complex process. As a result, there are few validated instruments that have been successfully used to measure SDM in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting.

Type
Chapter
Information
Shared Decision Making in Adult Critical Care , pp. 167 - 178
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Tippett, D.C., Siebens, A.A.. Using ventilators for speaking and swallowing. Dysphagia, 1991; 6(2):94–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoit, J.D., Banzett, R.B., Lohmeier, H.L., et al. Clinical ventilator adjustments that improve speech. Chest, 2003; 124(4): 1512–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bach, J.R., Alba, A.S.. Tracheostomy ventilation. A study of efficacy with deflated cuffs and cuffless tubes. Chest, 1990; 97(3): 679–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Kon, A.A., Davidson, J.E., Morrison, W., et al. Shared decision making in ICUs: an American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement. Critical Care Medicine, 2016; 44(1): 188–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbull, A.E., Sahetya, S.K., Needham, D.M.. Aligning critical care interventions with patient goals: a modified Delphi study. Heart & Lung, 2016; 45(6): 517–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, S.P.Y., Vig, E.K., Taylor, J.S., et al. Timing of initiation of maintenance dialysis: a qualitative analysis of the electronic medical records of a national cohort of patients from the Department of Veterans Affairs. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2016; 176(2): 228–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weissman, G.E., Hubbard, R.A., Ungar, L.H., et al. Inclusion of unstructured clinical text improves early prediction of death or prolonged ICU stay. Critical Care Medicine, 2018; 46(7): 1125–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gärtner, F.R., Bomhof-Roordink, H., Smith, I.P., et al. The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: a systematic review. PLoS ONE, 2018; 13(2): e0191747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, S.K., Bautista, C.A., Hong, S.Y., et al. An empirical study of surrogates’ preferred level of control over value-laden life support decisions in intensive care units. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2011; 183(7): 915–21.Google Scholar
Entwistle, V., Prior, M., Skea, Z.C., et al. Involvement in treatment decision-making: its meaning to people with diabetes and implications for conceptualisation. Social Science & Medicine, 2008; 66(2): 362–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbull, A.E., Hashem, M.D., Rabiee, A., et al. Evaluation of a strategy for enrolling the families of critically ill patients in research using limited human resources. PLoS ONE, 2017; 12(5): e0177741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kross, E.K., Engelberg, R.A., Shannon, S.E., et al. Potential for response bias in family surveys about end-of-life care in the ICU. Chest, 2009; 136(6): 1496–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelberg, R., Downey, L., Curtis, J.R.. Psychometric characteristics of a quality of communication questionnaire assessing communication about end-of-life care. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 2006; 9(5): 1086–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connor, A.M.. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Medical Decision Making, 1995; 15(1): 25–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiarchiaro, J., Buddadhumaruk, P., Arnold, R.M., et al. Prior advance care planning is associated with less decisional conflict among surrogates for critically ill patients. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2015; 12(10): 1528–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, M., Brown, J.B., Donner, A., et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. Journal of Family Practice, 2000; 49(9): 796–804.Google ScholarPubMed
White, D.B., Angus, D.C., Shields, A.M., et al. A randomized trial of a family-support intervention in intensive care units. New England Journal of Medicine, 2018; 378(25): 2365–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallinger, J.B., Griggs, J.J., Shields, C.G.. Patient-centered care and breast cancer survivors’ satisfaction with information. Patient Education and Counseling, 2005; 57(3): 342–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, P.J., Thompson, R., Walsh, T., et al. The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2014; 16(1): e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iii, C.H.B., Edwards, K.A., Hasenberg, N.M., et al. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 1999; 282(24): 2313–20.Google Scholar
White, D.B., Braddock, C.H., Bereknyei, S., et al. Toward shared decision making at the end of life in intensive care units: opportunities for improvement. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2007; 167(5): 461–7.Google Scholar
Barr, P.J., O’Malley, A.J., Tsulukidze, M., et al. The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION(5), an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Education and Counseling, 2015; 98(8): 970–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henbest, R.J., Stewart, M.A.. Patient-centredness in the consultation. 1: a method for measurement. Family Practice, 1989; 6(4): 249–53.Google Scholar
Melbourne, E., Roberts, S., Durand, M-A., et al. Dyadic OPTION: measuring perceptions of shared decision-making in practice. Patient Education and Counseling, 2011; 83(1): 55–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbull, A.E., Chessare, C.M., Coffin, R.K., et al. More than one in three proxies do not know their loved one’s current code status: an observational study in a Maryland ICU. PLoS ONE, 2019; 14(1): e0211531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D.L., Kobrin, S.. Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences. Implementation Science, 2016; 11(1): 114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbull, A.E., Hartog, C.S.. Goal-concordant care in the ICU: A conceptual framework for future research. Intensive Care Medicine, 2017; 43(12): 1847–9.Google Scholar
Turnbull, A.E., Sahetya, S.K., Colantuoni, E., et al. Inter-rater agreement of intensivists evaluating the goal concordance of preference-sensitive ICU interventions. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2018; 56(3): 406–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halpern, S.D.. Goal-concordant care – Searching for the Holy Grail. New England Journal of Medicine, 2019; 381(17): 1603–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbull, A.E., Bosslet, G.T., Kross, E.K.. Aligning use of intensive care with patient values in the USA: past, present, and future. Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2019; 7(7): 626–38.Google Scholar
Lamas, D.J., Owens, R.L., Nace, R.N., et al. Opening the door: the experience of chronic critical illness in a long-term acute care hospital. Critical Care Medicine, 2017; 45(4): e357–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torke, A.M., Sachs, G.A., Helft, P.R., et al. Scope and outcomes of surrogate decision making among hospitalized older adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2014; 174(3): 370–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brehaut, J.C., O’Connor, A.M., Wood, T.J., et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Medical Decision Making, 2003; 23(4): 281–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J.J., Morris, P., Files, D.C., et al. Decision conflict and regret among surrogate decision makers in the medical intensive care unit. Journal of Critical Care, 2016; 32: 79–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zigmond, A.S., Snaith, R.P.. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 1983; 67(6): 361–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, J.G., Grant, D.M., Read, J.P., et al. The impact of event scale-revised: psychometric properties in a sample of motor vehicle accident survivors. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2008; 22(2): 187–98.Google Scholar
Pastores, S.M., Kvetan, V., Coopersmith, C.M., et al. Workforce, workload, and burnout among intensivists and advanced practice providers: a narrative review. Critical Care Medicine, 2019; 47(4): 550–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altaker, K.W., Howie-Esquivel, J., Cataldo, J.K.. Relationships among palliative care, ethical climate, empowerment, and moral distress in intensive care unit nurses. American Journal of Critical Care, 2018; 27(4): 295–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×