Exploring the impact of a context-adapted decision aid and online training about shared decision making about goals of care with elderly patients in the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods study
Ariane Plaisance,Julien Turgeon,Lucas Gomes Souza,France Légaré,Stéphane Turcotte,Nathalie Germain,Tommy Jean,Maude Dionne,Félix Antoine Fortier,Patrick Plante,Diane Tapp,Véronique Gélinas,Emmanuelle Bélanger,Mark H Ebell,Christian Chabot,Tom van de Belt,Alexis F Turgeon,Patrick M Archambault
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.07.24313154
2024-09-19
Abstract:Purpose: To explore the impact of a context-adapted decision aid and an online training about shared decision-making (SDM) about goals of care on the level of involvement of elderly patients by intensivists in SDM about goals of care and quality of goals of care discussions (GCD) in an intensive care unit.
Methods: This was a three-phase before-after mixed-methods implementation study conducted in an ICU in Lévis, Quebec, Canada. We followed the StaRI and COREQ reporting guidelines. We recruited patients aged ≥ 65 and their attending intensivists. We video-recorded GCD in three phases: Phase I: GCD without a decision aid; Phase II: GCD with a decision aid about goals of care but no online training; and Phase III: GCD with both a decision aid about goals of care following online training about SDM. All GCD recordings were transcribed verbatim. We measured the level of patient engagement by intensivists in SDM about goals of care through the OPTION scale and evaluated GCD quality using the Audit of Communication, Care Planning, and Documentation (ACCEPT) indicators. A qualitative thematic analysis of the encounters transcriptions was also performed.
Results: Out of 359 eligible patients, the study included 21 patients (71% males; median age, 77 years; 57% without high school diploma) and 5 intensivists (80% male; median age, 35). Despite completing online training, the decision aid was never used in recorded encounters. We did not perform any tests of statistical significance to compare results in each study phase because of small sample sizes over each phase. OPTION and ACCEPT scores were low in each phase, but physicians did engage in GCD. We found that 76% of the goals of care recorded in medical records after the discussion were consistent with preferences expressed by patients during recorded observations. Several patients expressed confusion about GCD. Barriers identified by intensivists leading GCD include physician attitudes, challenges to performing GCD along with the demands of the intensive care unit, misunderstandings, and lack of training. Facilitators include a patient-centered approach, a clear decision aid, and positive patient attitudes. In future work, an environment that supports physicians in performing GCD, promotes earlier and higher quality patient GCD before admission to the intensive care unit, and encourages meaningful SDM in critical care must be assessed as pathways to successful intensive care unit GCD.
Conclusion: A context-adapted decision aid about goals of care was created in addition to a complementary online training module. The online training was completed by all participating physicians but no increased involvement of patients in SDM during intensive care unit GCD was observed, and use of the decision aid was also not observed. We found several communication barriers that will need to be explored to improve intensive care unit GCD.