Purpose Intensive care is a stressful environment in which team-family conflicts commonly occur. If managed poorly, conflicts can have negative effects on all parties involved. Previous studies mainly investigated these conflicts and their management in a retrospective way. This study aimed to prospectively explore team-family conflicts, including its main topics, complicating factors, doctors’ conflict management strategies and the effect of these strategies. Methods Conversations between doctors in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care unit of a large university-based hospital and families of critically ill patients were audio-recorded from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was still in patients’ best interest. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a qualitative deductive approach. Results Team-family conflicts occurred in 29 out of 101 conversations (29%) concerning 20 out of 36 patients (56%). Conflicts mostly concerned more than one topic. We identified four complicating context- and/or family-related factors: diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, families’ strong negative emotions, limited health literacy, and burden of responsibility. Doctors used four overarching strategies to manage conflicts, namely content-oriented, process-oriented, moral and empathic strategies. Doctors mostly used content-oriented strategies, independent of the intensive care setting. They were able to effectively address conflicts in most conversations. Yet, if they did not acknowledge families’ cues indicating the existence of one or more complicating factors, conflicts were likely to linger on during the conversation. Conclusion This study underlines the importance of doctors tailoring their communication strategies to the concrete conflict topic(s) and to the context- and family-related factors which complicate a specific conflict. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06771-5.

Background: Intensive care doctors have to find the right balance between sharing crucial decisions with families of patients on the one hand and not overburdening them on the other hand. This requires a tailored approach instead of a model based approach. Aim: To explore how doctors involve families in the decision-making process regarding life-sustaining treatment on the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care. Design: Exploratory inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations. Setting/participants: One hundred four family members (61% female, 39% male) and 71 doctors (60% female, 40% male) of 36 patients (53% female, 47% male) from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care of a large university medical center participated. Results: We identified eight relevant and distinct communicative behaviors. Doctors’ sequential communicative behaviors either reflected consistent approaches—a shared approach or a physician-driven approach—or reflected vacillating between both approaches. Doctors more often displayed a physician-driven or a vacillating approach than a shared approach, especially in the adult intensive care. Doctors did not verify whether their chosen approach matched the families’ decision-making preferences. Conclusions: Even though tailoring doctors’ communication to families’ preferences is advocated, it does not seem to be integrated into actual practice. To allow for true tailoring, doctors’ awareness regarding the impact of their communicative behaviors is key. Educational initiatives should focus especially on improving doctors’ skills in tactfully exploring families’ decision-making preferences and in mutually sharing knowledge, values, and treatment preferences.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians and parents of critically ill neonates and children receiving intensive care have to make decisions on the child’s behalf. Throughout the child’s illness and treatment trajectory, adequately discussing uncertainties with parents is pivotal because this enhances the quality of the decision-making process and may positively affect the child’s and parents’ well-being. We investigated how physicians discuss uncertainty with parents and how this discussion evolves over time during the trajectory. METHODS: We asked physicians working in the NICU and PICU of 3 university medical centers to audio record their conversations with parents of critically ill children from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was in the child’s best interests. We qualitatively coded and analyzed the anonymized transcripts, thereby using the software tool MAXQDA 2020. RESULTS: Physicians were found to adapt the way they discussed uncertainty with parents to the specific phase of the child’s illness and treatment trajectory. When treatment options were still available, physicians primarily focused on uncertainty related to diagnostic procedures, treatment options, and associated risks and effects. Particularly when the child’s death was imminent, physicians had less “scientific” guidance to offer. They eliminated most uncertainty and primarily addressed practical uncertainties regarding the child’s dying process to offer parents guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Our insights may increase physicians’ awareness and enhance their skills in discussing uncertainties with parents tailored to the phase of the child’s illness and treatment trajectory and to parental needs in each specific phase.

A recent line of argumentation research has focused on the examination of prototypical argumentative patterns – patterns that can be theoretically expected in view of the type of standpoint defended, the institutional aim, and the conventions and constraints of the context (Van Eemeren 2016: 13–15). This paper aims to add a new dimension to both this line of research and research on health communication by determining whether the prototypical types of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer are stereotypical as well, that is, whether they are dominant in a quantitative sense (van Eemeren 2016: 16). For this purpose, a valid and reliable measurement instrument is developed and used in a content analysis of the transcripts of 49 consultations. On the basis of the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that the use of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation is stereotypical in this type of consultations.