End-of-life perceptions among physicians in intensive care units managed by anesthesiologists in Germany: a survey about structure, current implementation and deficits

Abstract

BackgroundStructural aspects and current practice about end-of-life (EOL) decisions in German intensive care units (ICUs) managed by anesthesiologists are unknown. A survey among intensive care anesthesiologists has been conducted to explore current practice, barriers and opinions on EOL decisions in ICU.MethodsIn November 2015, all members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and the Association of German Anesthesiologists (BDA) were asked to participate in an online survey to rate the presence or absence and the importance of 50 items. Answers were grouped into three categories considering implementation and relevance: Category 1 reflects high implementation and high relevance, Category 2 low and low, and Category 3 low and high.ResultsFive-hundred and forty-one anesthesiologists responded. Only four items reached ≥90% agreement as being performed “yes, always” or “mostly”, and 29 items were rated “very” or “more important”. A profound discrepancy between current practice and attributed importance was revealed. Twenty-eight items attributed to Category 1, six to Category 2 and sixteen to Category 3. Items characterizing the most urgent need for improvement (Category 3) referred to patient outcome data, preparation of health care directives and interdisciplinary discussion, standard operating procedures, implementation of practical instructions and inclusion of nursing staff and families in the process.ConclusionThe present survey affirms an urgent need for improvement in EOL practice in German ICUs focusing on advanced care planning, distinct aspects of changing goals of care, implementation of standard operating procedures, continuing education and reporting of outcome data.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-017-0384-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors influencing the integration of a palliative approach in intensive care units: a systematic mixed-methods review

“…In the present study, decision-making to integrate a palliative approach in intensive care is influenced by healthcare professionals’ knowledge and attitudes about the transition from curative-focused to palliative-focused goals of care, which highlights the importance of focusing on healthcare professionals’ goal-setting attitudes and abilities in the integration of a palliative approach [ 46 ]. Unsurprisingly, having a clear goal of care on admission to the ICU seems to support professionals in the palliative decision-making process [ 24 ].…”

Online education about end‐of‐life care and the donation process after brain death and circulatory death. Can we influence perception and attitudes in critical care doctors? A prospective study

“…Some of the barriers hindering an adequate EOLC provision are related to the medical professionals themselves, mostly due to their lack of knowledge or legal/ethical concerns [4]. A survey conducted among 541 German intensive care anaesthesiologists identified lack of training as the main barrier to implementing EOLC in Germany [13]. This concern has been raised recently by other authors reporting that not even 50% of a large cohort of Italian and American critical care professionals surveyed confirmed that they had training in EOLC [8,14].…”

Current status of palliative care delivery and self-reported practice in ICUs in Japan: a nationwide cross-sectional survey of physician directors

“…These questions were modified from previous studies [ 29 , 30 ]. The practice of goals-of-care discussions using a four-point Likert scale (1: always, 2: usually, 3: not much, 4: not at all) on the following six items: (1) discussions are held with the family, (2) a nurse is involved; (3) using a room that ensures privacy; (4) the understanding of the patient’s family is confirmed; (5) details of the discussion are documented in the medical record; and (6) a summary of the discussion is provided to the family.…”