PurposeWhether the quality of the ethical climate in the intensive care unit (ICU) improves the identification of patients receiving excessive care and affects patient outcomes is unknown.MethodsIn this prospective observational study, perceptions of excessive care (PECs) by clinicians working in 68 ICUs in Europe and the USA were collected daily during a 28-day period. The quality of the ethical climate in the ICUs was assessed via a validated questionnaire. We compared the combined endpoint (death, not at home or poor quality of life at 1 year) of patients with PECs and the time from PECs until written treatment-limitation decisions (TLDs) and death across the four climates defined via cluster analysis.ResultsOf the 4747 eligible clinicians, 2992 (63%) evaluated the ethical climate in their ICU. Of the 321 and 623 patients not admitted for monitoring only in ICUs with a good (n = 12, 18%) and poor (n = 24, 35%) climate, 36 (11%) and 74 (12%), respectively were identified with PECs by at least two clinicians. Of the 35 and 71 identified patients with an available combined endpoint, 100% (95% CI 90.0–1.00) and 85.9% (75.4–92.0) (P = 0.02) attained that endpoint. The risk of death (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.20–2.92) or receiving a written TLD (HR 2.32, CI 1.11–4.85) in patients with PECs by at least two clinicians was higher in ICUs with a good climate than in those with a poor one. The differences between ICUs with an average climate, with (n = 12, 18%) or without (n = 20, 29%) nursing involvement at the end of life, and ICUs with a poor climate were less obvious but still in favour of the former.ConclusionEnhancing the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU may improve both the identification of patients receiving excessive care and the decision-making process at the end of life.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5231-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The 32-item version of the EDMCQ might enrich the EDM climate measurement, clinicians' behaviour and the performance of healthcare organisations. This instrument offers opportunities to develop tailored ICU team interventions.

Purpose: Apart from organizational issues, quality of inter-professional collaboration during ethical decision-making may affect the intention to leave one's job. To determine whether ethical climate is associated with the intention to leave after adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics.Methods: Perceptions of the ethical climate among clinicians working in 68 adult ICUs in 12 European countries and the US were measured using a self-assessment questionnaire, together with job characteristics and intent to leave as a sub-analysis of the Dispropricus study. The validated ethical decision-making climate questionnaire included seven factors: not avoiding decision-making at end-of-life (EOL), mutual respect within the interdisciplinary team, open interdisciplinary reflection, ethical awareness, self-reflective physician leadership, active decision-making at end-of-life by physicians, and involvement of nurses in EOL. Hierarchical mixed effect models were used to assess associations between these factors, and the intent to leave in clinicians within ICUs, within the different countries.Results: Of 3610 nurses and 1137 physicians providing ICU bedside care, 63.1% and 62.9% participated, respectively. Of 2992 participating clinicians, 782 (26.1%) had intent to leave, of which 27% nurses, 24% junior and 22.7% senior physicians. After adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics, mutual respect OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.90), open interdisciplinary reflection (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62-0.86]) and not avoiding EOL decisions (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77-0.98]) were all associated with a lower intent to leave.

By identifying modifiable areas which negatively influence life outside work when working shifts, it will be possible subsequently to plan interventions aimed at decreasing the negative effects. Interventions may include nurses having increased influence on their work schedules and education in sleep hygiene and dietary habits.

When making end-of-life decisions in intensive care units (ICUs), different staff groups have different roles in the decision-making process and may not always assess the situation in the same way. The aim of this study was to examine the challenges Danish nurses, intensivists, and primary physicians experience with end-of-life decisions in ICUs and how these challenges affect the decision-making process. Interviews with nurses, intensivists, and primary physicians were conducted, and data is discussed from an ethical perspective. All three groups found that the main challenges were associated with interdisciplinary collaboration and future perspectives for the patient. Most of these challenges were connected with ethical issues. The challenges included different assessments of treatment potential, changes and postponements of withholding and withdrawing therapy orders, how and when to identify patients' wishes, and suffering caused by the treatment. To improve end-of-life decision-making in the ICU, these challenges need to be addressed by interdisciplinary teams.

Nurses, intensivists and primary physicians differ in their perception of collaboration and other aspects of withholding and withdrawing therapy practises at the ICU. Multi-disciplinary patient conferences, nurse involvement in the decision-making process, and guidelines for withholding and withdrawing therapy are recommended.

Aim To explore how nurses experienced working in a newly organized COVID‐19 ward with high‐risk patients during a new and unknown pandemic. Design A qualitative explorative study using a phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach. Methods Semi‐structured individual telephone interviews were conducted in June–July 2020 with 23 nurses working in COVID‐19 wards from three regional hospitals in Denmark. The nurses had been transferred from other departments at their hospital to the newly organized COVID‐19 wards. Data analysis was influenced by Paul Ricoeur's theory of narrative and interpretation, including three analytical levels: naïve reading, structural analysis and critical interpretation and discussion. Results During the structural analysis four themes were generated: (a) Challenging and uncertain situation, but also a positive experience (b) Professional and personal development (c) Lack of nurses' rights during a pandemic (d) Reward in itself or a desire for financial reward.

Objectives: There is growing recognition that high-quality care for patients and families in the ICU requires exemplary interprofessional collaboration and communication. One important aspect is how the ICU team makes complex decisions. However, no recommendations have been published on interprofessional shared decision-making. The aim of this project is to use systematic review and normative analysis by experts to examine existing evidence regarding interprofessional shared decision-making, describe its principles and provide ICU clinicians with recommendations regarding its implementation. Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases and used normative analyses to formulate recommendations regarding interprofessional shared decision-making. Study Selection: Three authors screened titles and abstracts in duplicate. Data Synthesis: Four papers assessing the effect of interprofessional shared decision-making on quality of care were identified, suggesting that interprofessional shared decision-making is associated with improved processes and outcomes. Five recommendations, largely based on expert opinion, were developed: 1) interprofessional shared decision-making is a collaborative process among clinicians that allows for shared decisions regarding important treatment questions; 2) clinicians should consider engaging in interprofessional shared decision-making to promote the most appropriate and balanced decisions; 3) clinicians and hospitals should implement strategies to foster an ICU climate oriented toward interprofessional shared decision-making; 4) clinicians implementing interprofessional shared decision-making should consider incorporating a structured approach; and 5) further studies are needed to evaluate and improve the quality of interprofessional shared decision-making in ICUs. Conclusions: Clinicians should consider an interprofessional shared decision-making model that allows for the exchange of information, deliberation, and joint attainment of important treatment decisions.