Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
As intensivists from three distinct regions of the world with different cultural backgrounds, we believe it relevant in this rapidly emerging period of healthcare to share thoughts among clinicians providing end-of-life care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Intimate encounters with patients near the end of their lives [1] form a foundational aspect of our vocation as intensivists. This article is our vision of eight top-tier concepts that should be embraced to usher in the best end-of-life care for all patients. We realize that not everyone will agree with these points and anticipate that our “eight things” will stimulate healthy discussion and debate. Furthermore, there might be caregivers throughout the world dealing with different cultural, legal, political, and ethical preconditions that make implementation of the approach presented within this manuscript difficult in some respects. The joint American Thoracic Society (ATS)/American Association for Critical Care Nurses (AACN)/American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP)/European Society for Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM)/Society of Critical Care (SCCM) policy statement [2] and a complementary publication [3] on responding to potentially inappropriate treatment requests provide very helpful references for us in such difficult situations as well as a seven-step procedure for resolution of conflict.
1. I would not provide a non- or no longer beneficial treatment if requested by a patient and/or family or when the medical team recommends something that the patient legitimately wishes to forgo or considers overly burdensome
Non- or no longer beneficial treatments are frequently requested and received in the ICU [4, 5]. These treatments are not restricted to devices or invasive procedures such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); they include antibiotics, transfusions, or even diagnostic tests. Decisions must be patient specific, and judgments about the risks and benefits of any given treatment must be made by a well-informed patient or surrogate. First a physician must provide a professional opinion affirming that a treatment is indicated, then the patient/surrogate provides judgment as to whether or not in the patient’s eyes it is proportionate/ordinary care for her/him. It is both the physician’s “indication” of a medically sensible therapeutic aim with a distinct probability and the patient’s personal judgment that legitimize treatment. Thus, for one patient, mechanical ventilation might be proportionate, beneficial, acceptable, and used; for another patient the ventilator might be considered overly burdensome (i.e., judged by the patient or surrogate to be extraordinary and disproportionate treatment) and avoided. While risk and benefit are subjective and determined by the patient or surrogate, they must be understood in the context of the medical professional’s assessment of risk versus benefit.
2. I would never intentionally allow ongoing pain, anxiety, dyspnea, or other forms of suffering without doing all I can to relieve that suffering unless the patient specifically refuses such treatments in favor of ongoing suffering to allow some element of benefit (e.g., full consciousness to optimize communication with a loved one)
Palliation of suffering is a major goal of ICU care, yet it is too often undervalued or inadvertently unattended amidst the myriad of possible interventions considered by the ICU team. To provide the best ICU care, we must continue to ramp up collaboration with our palliative care colleagues. Indeed, forgoing or withdrawing treatment (as opposed to the incorrect and never-to-be-used term “forgoing or withdrawing care”) can relieve the suffering from overly burdensome interventions. Palliation can also be effected in many ways, both pharmacological and through non-pharmacological strategies such as massage, music, family presence, or even by reading to a patient [6,7,8].
3. I would not apply restricted visitation policies
Expanded family visitation hours in ICUs is now widely recognized as good medicine. Consider how important it is for a patient and his/her family to connect intimately in the final days of life. To do that, a major goal should be to have an attentive and non-delirious patient whenever possible. We now know that expanding family visitation accomplishes a reduction in delirium onset and duration [9, 10].
4. I would not assign bedside care and communication about shifting from cure to comfort to subsets of team members
We must model the “whole team” approach in the ICU. When we shift from aggressive interventions to palliation of suffering, every team member must embrace good end-of-life care as part of the continuum of care. The entire ICU team of clinicians makes decisions surrounding end-of-life, not a subset of members. Essentially, they must hear and feel the plural we will never leave you (the we being the entire scope of personnel).
5. I would never ask the patient “do you want everything done?”
The reason this wording is unhelpful and even dangerous in end-of-life care is that the list of “everything” depends on the patient’s situation. “Everything” for one patient might be aggressive therapy whereas for another patient “everything” would be palliative care. Perspectives may be different for the patient, family, and/or medical team. The word “everything” must be replaced with a careful and well-thought-out list of options that are indicated and provide the right balance of risk–benefit of the available treatment options according to the patient’s life goals.
6. I would never make an end-of-life decision and implement it without discussing it with the patient and/or family as well as other medical team members
Family and all members of the patient’s team are vital for best care of the patient. We strive to reach consensus or near-consensus regarding goals of care among family and healthcare providers. This applies both to making good end-of-life decisions and to prevention of moral distress/burnout or the perception of inappropriate care by ICU clinicians [11].
7. I would never tell the patient and/or family how long the patient will live
In the ICU, overestimation of how long someone will live is particularly problematic. Predicting the patient will live for a few months and then having him/her die within a week is surely an error on the wrong end of uncertainty. Much preferred is to prepare the patient or loved ones for the potential that an earlier death is possible or even likely. We call this “flipping” the question. When asked, “How long can Momma live,” the answer could be something along these lines: “I am not sure how long she can live, and I certainly hope it is weeks or months, but let me flip your question and talk about how quickly she might die. With all of her ongoing problems, it would not be surprising to us if she were to die today or tomorrow.” Ask yourself the “surprise question” [12]. This means asking whether you or your team would be surprised if the patient were to die within the next few days or weeks. If the answer is “No, I would not be surprised,” then it is appropriate end-of-life care to discuss this possibility. Such decisions and their timing should be determined on a patient-by-patient basis to establish appropriate code status in accordance with a patient’s wishes.
In the Eldicus study [13, 14], physicians triaging patients into the ICU were notoriously inaccurate with their assessments of how long patients will live. On the basis of large study populations we can get some idea about patient mortalities, but these predictions are not valid for the individual patient. In Ethicus [15], patients who had the withholding and withdrawing of life-prolonging therapies had respective 24-h, 48-h, and 72-h mortalities of 50%, 61%, and 68% (withholding) and 80%, 89%, and 93% (withdrawing).
8. I would never intentionally shorten the life of a patient by withdrawing treatment to cause death or intentionally administer a lethal drug or toxin
This point is best understood in relation to point 1. We often forego non- or no longer beneficial treatments that allow the patient’s death to occur. This is qualitatively different than intentional or active killing. Foregoing or withdrawing therapy that is no longer beneficial (i.e., judged by the patient or surrogate to be extraordinary and disproportionate treatment) is not done with intent to kill but rather to allow the natural duration of a person’s life to unfold without artificial technological intervention. Intentionally ending the life of a patient through a lethal dose of medication or a toxin, no matter what the patient’s disease or circumstances, must never be part of a healthcare professional’s activities [16, 17]. Active shortening of the dying process (i.e., euthanasia) is not only unethical, it is unnecessary once we actively address and palliate the needs of ICU patients and their family in the last days of life [15].
In conclusion, to paraphrase an oft-quoted mantra, we who have answered the vocation of healthcare must “cure sometimes, relieve often, and comfort always.” The evolution of ICU medicine continues to bring many extraordinary life-saving interventions. This is wonderful, but it does not at all supplant the priority of the last two aspects of our job, to relieve suffering and comfort our patients and their families. The take-home message could simply be to focus more resolutely on accomplishing the these two: relief of suffering through better palliative care and, in so doing, ushering in the “comfort always” piece of ICU medicine.
References
Ely EW (2018) What happens when a patient says, ‘Doc, help me die’. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/opinions/caregiving-what-its-like-to-be-me-wes-ely-opinion/index.html. Accessed 2 Jan 2019
Bosslet GT, Pope TM, Rubenfeld GD, Lo B, Truog RD, Rushton CH, Curtis JR, Ford DW, Osborne M, Misak C, Au DH, Azoulay E, Brody B, Fahy BG, Hall JB, Kesecioglu J, Kon AA, Lindell KO, White DB (2015) An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement: responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 191(11):1318–1330. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201505-0924ST
Kon AA, Shepard EK, Sederstrom NO, Swoboda SM, Marshall MF, Birriel B, Rincon F (2016) Defining futile and potentially inappropriate interventions: a policy statement from the society of critical care medicine ethics committee. Crit Care Med 44(9):1769–1774. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000001965
Downar J, You JJ, Bagshaw SM, Golan E, Lamontagne F, Burns K, Sridhar SK, Seely A, Meade MO, Fox-Robichaud A, Cook D, Turgeon AF, Dodek P, Xiong W, Fowler R, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (2015) Nonbeneficial treatment Canada: definitions, causes, and potential solutions from the perspective of healthcare practitioners. Crit Care Med 43(2):270–281. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000000704
Andereck WS, McGaughey JW, Schneiderman LJ, Jonsen AR (2014) Seeking to reduce nonbeneficial treatment in the ICU: an exploratory trial of proactive ethics intervention. Crit Care Med 42(4):824–830. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000034
Messika J, Martin Y, Maquigneau N, Puechberty C, Henry-Lagarrigue M, Stoclin A, Panneckouke N, Villard S, Dechanet A, Lafourcade A, Dreyfuss D, Hajage D, Ricard JD, MUS-IRA Team, MUS-IRA Investigators (2019) A musical intervention for respiratory comfort during noninvasive ventilation in the ICU. Eur Respir J. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01873-2018
Messika J, Hajage D, Panneckoucke N, Villard S, Martin Y, Renard E, Blivet A, Reignier J, Maquigneau N, Stoclin A, Puechberty C, Guetin S, Dechanet A, Fauquembergue A, Gaudry S, Dreyfuss D, Ricard JD (2016) Effect of a musical intervention on tolerance and efficacy of non-invasive ventilation in the ICU: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (MUSique pour l’Insuffisance Respiratoire Aigue—Mus-IRA). Trials 17(1):450. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1574-z
Chlan LL, Weinert CR, Heiderscheit A, Tracy MF, Skaar DJ, Guttormson JL, Savik K (2013) Effects of patient-directed music intervention on anxiety and sedative exposure in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilatory support: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 309(22):2335–2344. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.5670
Rosa RG, Tonietto TF, da Silva DB, Gutierres FA, Ascoli AM, Madeira LC, Rutzen W, Falavigna M, Robinson CC, Salluh JI, Cavalcanti AB, Azevedo LC, Cremonese RV, Haack TR, Eugenio CS, Dornelles A, Bessel M, Teles JMM, Skrobik Y, Teixeira C, ICU Visits Study Group Investigators (2017) Effectiveness and safety of an extended ICU visitation model for delirium prevention: a before and after study. Crit Care Med 45(10):1660–1667. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002588
da Silva Ramos FJ, Fumis RR, Azevedo LC, Schettino G (2013) Perceptions of an open visitation policy by intensive care unit workers. Ann Intensive Care 3(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1186/2110-5820-3-34
Piers RD, Azoulay E, Ricou B, Dekeyser Ganz F, Decruyenaere J, Max A, Michalsen A, Maia PA, Owczuk R, Rubulotta F, Depuydt P, Meert AP, Reyners AK, Aquilina A, Bekaert M, Van den Noortgate NJ, Schrauwen WJ, Benoit DD (2011) Perceptions of appropriateness of care among European and Israeli intensive care unit nurses and physicians. JAMA 306(24):2694–2703. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1888
Lilley EJ, Gemunden SA, Kristo G, Changoor N, Scott JW, Rickerson E, Shimizu N, Salim A, Cooper Z (2017) Utility of the “surprise” question in predicting survival among older patients with acute surgical conditions. J Palliat Med 20(4):420–423. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2016.0313
Sprung CL, Baras M, Iapichino G, Kesecioglu J, Lippert A, Hargreaves C, Pezzi A, Pirracchio R, Edbrooke DL, Pesenti A, Bakker J, Gurman G, Cohen SL, Wiis J, Payen D, Artigas A (2012) The Eldicus prospective, observational study of triage decision making in European intensive care units: part I-European Intensive Care Admission Triage Scores. Crit Care Med 40(1):125–131. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822e5692
Sprung CL, Artigas A, Kesecioglu J, Pezzi A, Wiis J, Pirracchio R, Baras M, Edbrooke DL, Pesenti A, Bakker J, Hargreaves C, Gurman G, Cohen SL, Lippert A, Payen D, Corbella D, Iapichino G (2012) The Eldicus prospective, observational study of triage decision making in European intensive care units. Part II: Intensive care benefit for the elderly. Crit Care Med 40(1):132–138. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e318232d6b0
Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Bulow HH, Hovilehto S, Ledoux D, Lippert A, Maia P, Phelan D, Schobersberger W, Wennberg E, Woodcock T, Ethicus Study Group (2003) End-of-life practices in European intensive care units: the Ethicus Study. JAMA 290(6):790–797. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.6.790
Sprung CL, Somerville MA, Radbruch L, Collet NS, Duttge G, Piva JP, Antonelli M, Sulmasy DP, Lemmens W, Ely EW (2018) Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: emerging issues from a global perspective. J Palliat Care. https://doi.org/10.1177/0825859718777325
Sulmasy DP, Finlay I, Fitzgerald F, Foley K, Payne R, Siegler M (2018) Physician-assisted suicide: why neutrality by organized medicine is neither neutral nor appropriate. J Gen Intern Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4424-8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
An approval by an ethics committee was not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ely, E.W., Azoulay, E. & Sprung, C.L. Eight things we would never do regarding end-of-life care in the ICU. Intensive Care Med 45, 1116–1118 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05562-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05562-9