Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T05:59:03.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - When Does Shared Decision-Making Apply in Adult Critical Care?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2021

Matthew N. Jaffa
Affiliation:
Hartford Hospital, Connecticut
David Y. Hwang
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Shared decision-making in medicine has been defined by multiple professional societies as “a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make health-care decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient’s values, goals and preferences.”1 This definition incorporates several important ethical principles simultaneously; it acknowledges the importance of patient autonomy. Patient autonomy incorporates a patient’s personal values and respects the degree to which he or she might wish to be involved in a decision about his or her own medical care.2 It also recognizes the critical role of clinicians as experts in actively advising patients about the benefits and risks of their available treatment options and in designing treatment plans to align with patients’ ultimate goals and preferences.

Type
Chapter
Information
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

Kon, A.A., Davidson, J.E., Morrison, W., Danis, M., White, D.B., American College of Critical Care Medicine, 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): 188201.Google Scholar
Ubel, P.A., Scherr, K.A., Fagerlin, A.. Autonomy: what’s shared decision making have to do with it? American Journal of Bioethics, 2018; 18(2): W11W12.Google Scholar
Edwards, A., Elwyn, G.. Shared Decision Making in Health Care: Achieving Evidence-Based Patient Choice, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, P.S., Grisso, T.. Assessing patients’ capacities to consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 1988; 319(25): 1635–8.Google Scholar
Patak, L., Gawlinski, A., Fung, N.I., Doering, L., Berg, J., Henneman, E.A.. Communication boards in critical care: patients’ views. Applied Nursing Research: ANR 2006; 19(4): 182–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilden, V.P., Tolle, S.W., Nelson, C.A., Fields, J.. Family decision-making to withdraw life-sustaining treatments from hospitalized patients. Nursing Research 2001; 50(2): 105–15.Google Scholar
Majesko, A., Hong, S.Y., Weissfeld, L., White, D.B.. Identifying family members who may struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker. Critical Care Medicine 2012; 40(8): 2281–6.Google Scholar
Benson, W., Aldrich, N.. Advance Care Planning: Ensuring Your Wishes Are Known and Honored If You Are Unable to Speak for Yourself, Critical Issue Brief. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012.Google Scholar
Wendler, D., Rid, A.. Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Annals of Internal Medicine 2011; 154(5): 336–46.Google Scholar
Seckler, A.B., Meier, D.E., Mulvihill, M., Cammer Paris, B.E.. Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions? Annals of Internal Medicine 1991; 115(2): 92–8.Google Scholar
Suhl, J., Simons, P., Reedy, T., Garrick, T.. Myth of substituted judgment: surrogate decision making regarding life support is unreliable. Archives of Internal Medicine 1994; 154(1): 90–6.Google Scholar
Brudney, D.. Choosing for another: beyond autonomy and best interests. Hastings Center Report 2009; 39(2): 31–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Charles, C., Whelan, T., Gafni, A.. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ 1999; 319(7212): 780–2.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
×