Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) frequently exhibit insufficient contextual adaptation, diminishing user engagement. To enhance the sensitivity of CDSS to contextual conditions, it is crucial first to develop a comprehensive understanding of the context factors influencing the clinical decision-making process. Therefore, this study aims to systematically identify and provide an extensive overview of contextual factors affecting clinical decision-making from the literature, enabling their consideration in the future implementation of CDSS.

A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to identify context factors in the clinical decision-making process. Searches were performed across nine databases: PubMed, APA PsycInfo, APA PsyArticles, PSYINDEX, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and LIVIVO. The search strategy focused on combined terms related to contextual factors and clinical decision-making. Included articles were original research articles written in English or German that involved empirical investigations related to clinical decision-making. The identified context factors were categorized using the card sorting method to ensure accurate classification.

The data synthesis included 84 publications, from which 946 context factors were extracted. These factors were assigned to six primary entities through card sorting: patient, physician, patient's family, institution, colleagues, and disease treatment. The majority of the identified context factors pertained to individual characteristics of the patient, such as health status and demographic attributes, as well as individual characteristics of the physician, including demographic data, skills, and knowledge.

This study provides a comprehensive overview of context factors in clinical decision-making previously investigated in the literature, highlighting the complexity and diversity of contextual influences on the decision-making process. By offering a detailed foundation of identified context factors, this study paves the way for future research to develop more effective, context-sensitive CDSS, enhancing personalized medicine and optimizing clinical outcomes with implications for practice and policy.

Critically ill patients and their families commonly experience financial hardship, yet this experience is inadequately addressed by clinicians providing care in the intensive care unit. Understanding clinicians' perspectives on the barriers to addressing financial hardship provides an opportunity to identify and mitigate those barriers and improve patient outcomes.

To characterize intensive care unit clinicians' experiences with and perceived barriers to addressing financial hardship with their patients.

The study entailed a thematic analysis of semistructured interviews of 17 physicians, nurses, and social workers providing care to critically ill patients in a large academic health care system in the US Pacific Northwest.

Participants recognized the importance of addressing financial hardship as an integral part of patient-centered care but identified barriers influencing their comfort with and capacity to address financial hardship. Barriers fit into 2 themes: "(dis)comfort addressing financial hardship" and "values-based concerns." (Dis)comfort addressing financial hardship was influenced by systems- and practice-based barriers. Participants discussed concerns about real and perceived conflicts of interest when patient, family, clinician, and institutional priorities were not aligned.

Participants recognized financial hardship as an important consequence of critical illness that negatively affected patient and family outcomes, yet they described barriers to adequately addressing this topic. Normalizing discussions about the financial impacts of critical illness and systematically screening for financial hardship may be a first step in mitigating these barriers.

Making appropriate end-of-life decisions in the intensive care unit (ICU) requires shared interprofessional decision-making. Thus, a decision-making climate that values the contributions of all team members, addresses diverse opinions and seeks consensus among team members is necessary. Little is known about religion's influence on ethical decision-making climates. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the association between religious belief and ethical decision-making climates.

The study was a cross-sectional analytical observation study as a part of the prospective observational DISPROPRICUS study. A total of 2,275 nurses and 717 physicians from 68 ICUs representing 12 countries in Europe and the US participated. All participants were asked which religion (if any) they belonged to and how important their religion (if any) was for their professional attitude towards end-of-life care. Perceptions of ethical decision-making climates were evaluated using a validated, 35-item self-assessment questionnaire that evaluates seven factors. Using cluster analysis, ICUs were categorised into four ethical decision-making climates: good, average (with nurses' involvement at the end of life), average (without nurses' involvement at the end of life) and poor.

Of the 2,992 participants, 453 (15%) were religious (had religious convictions and found them important or very important for their attitude towards end-of-life care). The remaining 2,539 were non-religious (i.e. had religious convictions but assessed that they were not important for their attitude towards end-of-life care). When adjusting for country and ICU, the overall perception of the four ethical climates was associated with religious beliefs, with non-religious healthcare providers having more positive perceptions of the ethical climates compared to religious healthcare providers (p < 0.01). Within good climates, non-religious healthcare providers rated leadership by physicians (p < 0.01), interdisciplinary reflection (p = 0.049) and active decision-making by physicians (p = 0.02) as more positive compared to religious participants. In poor climates, religious healthcare providers had a more positive perception of the active involvement of nurses (p = 0.01). Within the other climates, no differences were found.

Overall perceptions of ethical decision-making climates were associated with religious beliefs, with non-religious healthcare providers generally having a more positive perception of the ethical climates than religious healthcare providers.

In the intensive care unit (ICU), antibiotics are often given longer than recommended in guidelines. A better understanding of the factors influencing antibiotic therapy duration is needed to develop improvement strategies to effectively address these drivers of excessive duration. This study aimed to explore the determinants of adherence to recommended antibiotic therapy durations among healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic decision-making within the ICU, focusing on multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs).

Semistructured interviews were held with healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic decision-making during MDMs in four Dutch ICUs. Participants included intensivists, clinical microbiologists and ICU residents. Transcripts were analysed using deductive and inductive content analysis methods.

A total of 20 participants were interviewed. The interviews revealed that decision-making regarding antibiotic therapy duration is a complex process, primarily centred around professional interactions during MDMs and involving a broad range of determinants. These determinants were categorised into the following four steps: (1) the introduction of duration as a topic for discussion in the MDM (eg, lack of priority to discuss antibiotic therapy duration); (2) the discussion of antibiotic therapy duration itself (eg, lack of core members during MDM); (3) the establishment of a concrete decision (eg, lack of documentation of the decisions made); (4) the execution of the decision (eg, forgetting to stop antibiotics).

Our study identified numerous factors that influence decisions about the duration of antibiotic therapy during MDMs in the ICU. By describing these factors throughout the decision-making process, we provided valuable insights into barriers that commonly arise in specific steps, highlighting critical areas for improvement. Daily MDMs were deemed essential for informed decision-making regarding antibiotic therapy duration by the interviewees. Strategies to improve appropriate duration in the ICU should prioritise strengthening interdisciplinary communication between healthcare professionals and adding structure to these meetings.

Weaning from mechanical ventilation is a complex and central intensive care process. This complexity indicates that the challenges of weaning must be explored from different perspectives. Furthermore, physicians' experiences and the factors influencing their decision-making regarding weaning are unclear.

This study aimed to explore and describe the factors influencing physicians' decision-making when weaning patients from invasive mechanical ventilation in Swedish intensive care units (ICUs).

This qualitative study used an exploratory and descriptive design with qualitative content analysis. Sixteen physicians from five ICUs across Sweden were purposively included and interviewed regarding their weaning experiences.

The physicians expressed that prioritising the patient's well-being was evident, and there was agreement that both the physical and mental condition of the patient had a substantial impact on decision-making. Furthermore, there was a lack of agreement on whether patients should be involved in the weaning process and how their resources, needs, and wishes should be included in decision-making. In addition, there were factors not directly linked to the patient but which still influenced decision-making, such as the available resources and teamwork. Sometimes, it was difficult to point out the basis for decisions; in that decisions were made by gut feeling, intuition, or clinical experience.

Physicians' decision-making regarding weaning was a dynamic process influenced by several factors. These factors were related to the patient's condition and the structure for weaning. Increased understanding of weaning from the physicians' and ICU teams' perspectives may improve the weaning process by broadening the knowledge about the aspects influencing the decision-making.

Preserving new graduate nurses in the profession is an essential step for addressing the nursing shortage and sustaining the future of the profession. This study aimed to examine the relationship between employment characteristics and job satisfaction of novice nurses and their willingness to stay in the nursing profession in the next 5 years.

Novice nurses' intention to stay in the profession was assessed, considering demographics, employment characteristics, and components of job satisfaction. Among the sample of 216 novice nurses (93% response rate), four components of job satisfaction were extracted and included in the multivariable logistic regression model with the intention to stay in the profession as a dependent variable.

Professional self-accomplishment was significantly and positively associated with the intention to stay in the profession, with an elevation of one standard deviation in this component associated with more than a two-fold increase in the odds of staying (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-3.9). This component contributed 10% to the variance in intention to stay. Independently, managerial support also contributed 10% to the variance and was significantly associated with willingness to stay (OR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0). Overall, self-accomplishment, managerial support, and healthier organizational culture were significantly associated with novice nurses' intention to stay, whereas work conditions and rewards were not. The multivariable analysis model explained 38.0% of the variance in the intention to stay in the profession.

This study found that novice nurses' intention to stay in the profession is highly associated with their self-accomplishment and better managerial support. Thus, to enhance the retention of novice nurses, managers must establish an environment that fosters professional development and support. This involves providing engaging work assignments, facilitating the seamless integration of novice nurses into the team, and offering managerial support and guidance.

Background: Person-centredness, a global movement in healthcare, is consistent with international developments in healthcare policy. It is important to have instruments to measure person-centred care. The Person-Centred Practice Inventory-Staff (PCPI-S) is an internationally recognized instrument that aims to measure how healthcare staff experience person-centred practice. Aim: To perform the cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of a Spanish version of the PCPI-S (PCPI-S (Sp)). Method: A two-stage research design was implemented as follows: (1) the translation and cultural adaptation of the PCPI-S from English to Spanish using the "Translation and Cultural Adaptation of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures-Principles of Good Practice"; (2) a quantitative cross-sectional survey for the psychometric evaluation of the PCPI-S. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using the Kendall tau concordance coefficient, internal reliability was assessed through the ordinal theta (OT) coefficient, and confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine the theoretical measurement model. Results: A Spanish version of the PCPI-S was obtained. There were no significant difficulties in the translation process or the consulting sessions. A sample of 287 healthcare professionals participated in the study at least once. All the items showed at least a fair level of test-retest reliability. The OT scores were adequate (>0.69). The model showed good to adequate levels of fit: CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.068; RMSEA = 0.060 with CI90% (0.056-0.063). Conclusions: The Spanish translation of the PCPI-S was psychometrically valid when tested with Spanish healthcare professionals. This instrument will help identify professionals' perceptions of person-centred practice, track the evolution of this practice over time, and assess interventions aimed at improving person-centred practice.

Decision making for adult tracheostomy and prolonged mechanical ventilation is emotionally complex. Expectations of surrogate decision makers and physicians rarely align. Little is known about what surrogates need to make goal-concordant decisions. Currently, little is known about the decisional needs of surrogates and providers, impeding efforts to improve the decision-making process.

Using a thematic analysis approach, we performed a qualitative study with semistructured interviews with surrogates of adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) being considered for tracheostomy and physicians routinely caring for patients receiving MV. Recruitment was stopped when thematic saturation was reached. We describe the decision-making process, identify core decisional needs, and map the process and needs for possible elements of a future shared decision-making tool.

Forty-three participants (23 surrogates and 20 physicians) completed interviews. Hope, Lack of Knowledge Data, and Uncertainty emerged as the 3 main themes that described the decision-making process and were interconnected with one another and, at times, opposed each other. Core decisional needs included information about patient wishes, past activity/medical history, short- and long-term outcomes, and meaningful recovery. The themes were the lens through which the decisional needs were weighed. Decision making existed as a balance between surrogate emotions and understanding and physician recommendations.

Tracheostomy and prolonged MV decision making is complex. Hope and Uncertainty were conceptual themes that often battled with one another. Lack of Knowledge & Data plagued both surrogates and physicians. Multiple tangible factors were identified that affected surrogate decision making and physician recommendations.

Understanding this complex decision-making process has the potential to improve the information provided to surrogates and, potentially, increase the goal-concordant care and alignment of surrogate and physician expectations.

Decision making for tracheostomy and prolonged mechanical ventilation is a complex interactive process between surrogate decision makers and providers.Qualitative themes of Hope, Uncertainty, and Lack of Knowledge & Data shared by both providers and surrogates were identified and described the decision-making process.Concrete decisional needs of patient wishes, past activity/medical history, short- and long-term outcomes, and meaningful recovery affected each of the larger themes and represented key information from which surrogates and providers based decisions and recommendations.The qualitative themes and decisional needs identified provide a roadmap to design a shared decision-making intervention to improve adult tracheostomy and prolonged mechanical ventilation decision making.

The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) has developed evidence-based recommendations and expert opinions about end-of-life (EoL) and palliative care for critically ill adults to optimize patient-centered care, improving outcomes of relatives, and supporting intensive care unit (ICU) staff in delivering compassionate and effective EoL and palliative care. An international multi-disciplinary panel of clinical experts, a methodologist, and representatives of patients and families examined key domains, including variability across countries, decision-making, palliative-care integration, communication, family-centered care, and conflict management. Eight evidence-based recommendations (6 of low level of evidence and 2 of high level of evidence) and 19 expert opinions were presented. EoL legislation and the importance of respecting the autonomy and preferences of patients were given close attention. Differences in EoL care depending on country income and healthcare provision were considered. Structured EoL decision-making strategies are recommended to improve outcomes of patients and relatives, as well as staff satisfaction and mental health. Early integration of palliative care and the use of standardized tools for symptom assessment are suggested for patients at high risk of dying. Communication training for ICU staff and printed communication aids for families are advocated to improve outcomes and satisfaction. Methods for enhancing family-centeredness of care include structured family conferences and culturally sensitive interventions. Conflict-management protocols and strategies to prevent burnout among healthcare professionals are also considered. The work done to develop these guidelines highlights many areas requiring further research.

The aim of this study was to assess whether coaching doctors to enhance ethical decision-making in teams improves (1) goal-oriented care operationalized via written do-not-intubate and do-not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNI-DNACPR) orders in adult patients potentially receiving excessive treatment (PET) during their first hospital stay and (2) the quality of the ethical climate.

We carried out a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) and 9 referring internal medicine departments of Ghent University Hospital between February 2022 and February 2023. Doctors and nurses in charge of hospitalized patients filled out the ethical decision-making climate questionnaire (ethical decision-making climate questionnaire, EDMCQ) before and after the study, and anonymously identified PET via an electronic alert during the entire study period. All departments were randomly assigned to a 4-month coaching. At least one month of coaching was compared to less than one month coaching and usual care. The first primary endpoint was the incidence of written DNI-DNACPR decisions. The second primary endpoint was the EDMCQ before and after the study period. Because clinicians identified less PET than required to detect a difference in written DNI-DNACPR decisions, a post-hoc analysis on the overall population was performed. To reduce type I errors, we further restricted the analysis to one of our predefined secondary endpoints (mortality up to 1 year).

Of the 442 and 423 clinicians working before and after the study period, respectively 270 (61%) and 261 (61.7%) filled out the EDMCQ. Fifty of the 93 (53.7%) doctors participated in the coaching for a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 4.36 (2.55) sessions. Of the 7254 patients, 125 (1.7%) were identified as PET, with 16 missing outcome data. Twenty-six of the PET and 624 of the overall population already had a written DNI-DNACPR decision at study entry, resulting in 83 and 6614 patients who were included in the main and post hoc analysis, respectively. The estimated incidence of written DNI-DNACPR decisions in the intervention vs. control arm was, respectively, 29.7% vs. 19.6% (odds ratio 4.24, 95% confidence interval 4.21-4.27; P < 0.001) in PET and 3.4% vs. 1.9% (1.65, 1.12-2.43; P = 0.011) in the overall study population. The estimated mortality at one year was respectively 85% vs. 83.7% (hazard ratio 2.76, 1.26-6.04; P = 0.011) and 14.5% vs. 15.1% (0.89, 0.72-1.09; P = 0.251). The mean difference in EDMCQ before and after the study period was 0.02 points (- 0.18 to 0.23; P = 0.815).

This study suggests that coaching doctors regarding ethical decision-making in teams safely improves goal-oriented care operationalized via written DNI-DNACPR decisions in hospitalized patients, however without concomitantly improving the quality of the ethical climate.

Facing ethical dilemmas is challenging and sometimes becomes a real burden for anesthesiologists, particularly because they rarely have previous or long-standing patient relationships that help inform clinical decision-making. Although there is no ideal algorithm that can fit all clinical situations, some basic moral and ethical principles, which should be part of every clinician's armamentarium, can guide the decision-making process. Dealing with conflicting views among providers and/or patients can be distressing but can lead to meaningful professional and personal growth for each clinician.

We present a relationship-centred shared-decision-making (RCSDM) process model to explicate factors that shape decision-making processes during physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) encounters among patients, their care partners and practitioners. Existing shared decision-making (SDM) models fall short in addressing the everyday decisions routinely made regarding persons with chronic disabilities who require high levels of support, their care partners and rehabilitation practitioners. In PMR, these everyday decisions are small scale, immediate and in service to a larger therapeutic goal. They can be thought of as micro-decisions and involve multiple practitioners, care partners and patients. How micro-decisions are made in this context is contingent on multiple roles and relationships among these relevant parties. Our model centres on micro-decisions among patients, their care partners and practitioners based on our disorders of consciousness (DoC) research.

To develop our model, we examined peer-reviewed literature in SDM in PMR, chronic disability and person-centeredness; formed collaborations and co-created our constructs with rehabilitation practitioners and with care partners who have lived experience of caring for persons with DoC; analysed emerging empirical data and vetted early versions with expert scientific and clinical audiences. Our model builds from the core tenets of relational autonomy, and scholarship and activism of disability advocates.

Our model conceptualizes four non-hierarchical levels of analysis to understand the process of micro-decision-making in chronic disability and medical rehabilitation: social forces (historical and sociological); roles and relationships (multiple and intersecting); relational dimensions (interactional and contextual) and micro-decision moments (initiation, response and closure).

Relationships among patients, their care partners and practitioners are the intersubjective milieu within which decisions are made. Our conceptual model explicates the process of micro-decision-making in PMR.

Care partners (or caregivers) and rehabilitation practitioners are active members of our team. We work together to develop research projects, collect, analyse and disseminate data. The conceptual model we present in this manuscript was co-created-input from care partners and practitioners on previously collected data became the impetus to develop the RCSDM process model and share co-authorship in this manuscript.

Physicians, patients, and families alike perceive a need to improve how goals of care (GOC) decisions occur in chronic critical illness (CCI), but little is currently known about this decision-making process.

How do intensivists from various health systems facilitate decision-making about GOC for patients with CCI? What are barriers to, and facilitators of, this decision-making process?

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of intensivists from the United States and Canada using a mental models approach adapted from decision science. We analyzed transcripts inductively using qualitative description.

We interviewed 29 intensivists from six institutions. Participants across all sites described GOC decision-making in CCI as a complex, longitudinal, and iterative process that involved substantial preparatory work, numerous stakeholders, and multiple family meetings. Intensivists required considerable time to collect information on prior events and conversations, and to arrive at a prognostic consensus with other involved physicians prior to meeting with families. Many intensivists stressed the importance of scheduling multiple family meetings to build trust and relationships prior to explicitly discussing GOC. Physician-identified barriers to GOC decision-making included 1-week staffing models, limited time and cognitive bandwidth, difficulty eliciting patient values, and interpersonal challenges with care team members or families. Potential facilitators included scheduled family meetings at regular intervals, greater interprofessional involvement in decisions, and consistent messaging from care team members.

Intensivists described a complex time- and labor-intensive group process to achieve GOC decision-making in CCI. System-level interventions that improve how information is shared between physicians and decrease logistical and relational barriers to timely and consistent communication are key to improving GOC decision-making in CCI.

ICU nurses are most frequently at the patient's bedside, providing care for both patients and family members. They perform an essential role and are involved in decision-making. Despite this, research suggests that nurses have a limited role in the end-of-life decision-making process and are occasionally not involved.

Explore global ICU nurse involvement in end of life decisions based on the physician's perceptions and sub-analyses from the ETHICUS-2 study.

This is a secondary analysis of a prospective multinational, observational study of the ETHICUS-2 study.

End of life decision-making processes in ICU patients were studied during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, in 199 ICUs in 36 countries.

None.

The ETHICUS II study instrument contained 20 questions. This sub-analysis addressed the four questions related to nurse involvement in end-of-life decision-making: Who initiated the end-of-life discussion? Was withholding or withdrawing treatment discussed with nurses? Was a nurse involved in making the end-of-life decision? Was there agreement between physicians and nurses? These 4 questions are the basis for our analysis. Global regions were compared.

Physicians completed 91.8 % of the data entry. A statistically significant difference was found between regions (p < 0.001) with Northern Europe and Australia/New Zealand having the most discussion with nurses and Latin America, Africa, Asia and North America the least. The percentages of end-of-life decisions in which nurses were involved ranged between 3 and 44 %. These differences were statistically significant. Agreement between physicians and nurses related to decisions resulted in a wide range of responses (27-86 %) (p < 0.001). There was a wide range of those who replied "not applicable" to the question of agreement between physicians and nurses on EOL decisions (0-41 %).

There is large variability in nurse involvement in end-of-life decision-making in the ICU. The most concerning findings were that in some regions, according to physicians, nurses were not involved in EOL decisions and did not initiate the decision-making process. There is a need to develop the collaboration between nurses and physicians. Nurses have valuable contributions for best possible patient-centered decisions and should be respected as important parts of the interdisciplinary team.

Wide global differences were found in nurse end of life decision involvement, with low involvement in North and South America and Africa and higher involvement in Europe and Australia/New Zealand.

Diagnostic errors are prevalent in critical care practice and are associated with patient harm and costs for providers and the healthcare system. Patient complexity, illness severity, and the urgency in initiating proper treatment all contribute to decision-making errors. Clinician-related factors such as fatigue, cognitive overload, and inexperience further interfere with effective decision-making. Cognitive science has provided insight into the clinical decision-making process that can be used to reduce error. This evidence-based review discusses ten common misconceptions regarding critical care decision-making. By understanding how practitioners make clinical decisions and examining how errors occur, strategies may be developed and implemented to decrease errors in Decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

Nurses' common experiences of old age and intensive care: A qualitative study Abstract. Background: Increasingly more people in the 80+ age group are receiving treatment in the ICU-setting. The related critical care nurses' experience has been the subject of very few studies. Aim: To better understand the everyday nursing practice in the care of old patients in the ICU setting, the knowledge of critical care nurses that guides their actions will be examined and presented in terms of their orientations and typologies. Method: Within the interpretative paradigm, three guideline-based group discussions were conducted with a total of 14 critical care nurses from an Austrian clinic. Data was analyzed using the documentary method according to Bohnsack. Results: Five orientations characterize the knowledge and the actions of critical care nurses relating to old patients: the respect for the patients' will, the search for ethical justification, the beauty of the job, the own reflection of professional actions as well as the perception of a partly misguided health care system. The superior action-guiding typology is advocacy in the representation of the very old patients' interests. Conclusions: The multi-faceted experiences of critical care nurses are characterized by personal, interpersonal, and structural challenges, but also by positive experiences. The findings offer approaches to improve the care situation for nurses as well as for old people in intensive care units.

To investigate ED and intensive care unit healthcare professionals' perspectives and knowledge of the law that underpins end-of-life decision-making in Queensland, Australia.

An online survey with questions about perspectives, perceived, and actual, knowledge of the law was distributed by the professional organisations of medical practitioners, nurses and social workers who work in Queensland EDs and intensive care units.

The survey responses of 126 healthcare professionals were included in the final analysis. Most respondents agreed that the law was relevant to end-of-life decision-making, but that clinician and family consensus mattered more than following the law. Generally, doctors' legal knowledge was higher than nurses'; however, there were significant gaps in the knowledge of all respondents about the operation of advance health directives in Queensland.

The legal framework that supports end-of-life decision-making for adults who lack decision-making capacity has been in place for more than two decades. Despite frequently being involved in making or enacting these decisions, gaps in the legal knowledge of healthcare professionals who work in EDs and intensive care units in Queensland are evident. Further research to better understand how to improve knowledge and application of the law is warranted.

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid transition to telehealth. Telehealth presents challenges for rehabilitation of stroke survivors with moderate-to-severe physical disability, which traditionally relies on physical interactions. The objective was to co-design resources to support delivery of rehabilitation via telehealth for this cohort.

Four-stage integrated knowledge translation co-design approach. Stage 1: Research team comprising researchers, clinicians and stroke survivors defined the research question and approach. Stage 2: Workshops and interviews were conducted with knowledge users (participants) to identify essential elements of the program. Stage 3: Resources developed by the research team. Stage 4: Resources reviewed by knowledge users and adapted.

Twenty-one knowledge users (clinicians n = 11, stroke survivors n = 7, caregivers n = 3) RESULTS: All stakeholders emphasised the complexities of telehealth rehabilitation for stroke and the need for individualised programs. Shared decision-making was identified as critical. Potential risks and benefits of telehealth were acknowledged and strategies to ameliorate risks and deliver effective rehabilitation were identified. Four freely available online resources were co-designed; three resources to support clinicians with shared decision-making and risk management and a decision-aid to support stroke survivors and caregivers throughout the process. Over six months, 1129 users have viewed the webpage; clinician resources were downloaded 374 times and the decision-aid was downloaded 570 times.

The co-design process identified key elements for delivery of telehealth rehabilitation to stroke survivors with moderate-to-severe physical disability and led to development of resources to support development of an individualised telehealth rehabilitation plan. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of these resources. CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER.

Poor communication within healthcare teams occurs commonly, contributing to inefficiency, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) are a promising model that brings two or more health professions together with patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the breadth and quality of IBR literature to identify and describe gaps and opportunities for future research. We followed an adapted Arksey and O'Malley Framework and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for key IBR words and concepts through June 2020. Seventy-nine articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data abstraction. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Publications in this field have increased since 2014, and the majority of studies reported positive impacts of IBR implementation across an array of team, patient, and care quality/delivery outcomes. Despite the preponderance of positive findings, great heterogeneity, and a reliance on quantitative non-randomized study designs remain in the extant research. A growing number of interventions to improve safety, quality, and care experiences in hospital settings focus on redesigning daily inpatient rounds. Limited information on IBR characteristics and implementation strategies coupled with widespread variation in terminology, study quality, and design create challenges in assessing the effectiveness of models of rounds and optimal implementation strategies. This scoping review highlights the need for additional studies of rounding models, implementation strategies, and outcomes that facilitate comparative research.

For a hospitalized patient, transitioning to comfort measures only (CMO) involves discontinuation of life-prolonging interventions with a goal of allowing natural death. Nurses play a pivotal role during the provision of CMO, caring for both the dying patient and their family.

To examine the experiences of ICU nurses caring for patients receiving CMO.

Between October 2020 and June 2021, nurses in the neuro- and medical-cardiac intensive care units at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, WA, completed surveys about their experiences providing CMO. Surveys addressed involvement in discussions about CMO and questions asked by family members of dying patients. We also assessed nurses' moral distress related to CMO and used ordinal logistic regression to examine predictors of moral distress.

Surveys were completed by 82 nurses (response rate 44%), with 79 (96%) reporting experience providing CMO in the previous year. Most preferred to be present for discussions between physicians or advanced practice providers and family members about transitioning to CMO (89% most of the time or always); however, only 31% were present most of the time or always. Questions from family about time to death, changes in breathing, and medications to relieve symptoms were common. Most nurses reported moral distress at least some of the time when providing CMO (62%). Feeling well-prepared to answer specific questions from family was associated with less moral distress.

There is discordance between nurses' preferences for inclusion in discussions about the transition to CMO and their actual presence. Moral distress is common for nurses when providing CMO and feeling prepared to answer questions from family members may attenuate distress.

During the last decades, shared decision making (SDM) has become a very popular model for the physician-patient relationship. SDM can refer to a process (making a decision in a shared way) and a product (making a shared decision). In the literature, by far most attention is devoted to the process. In this paper, I investigate the product, wondering what is involved by a medical decision being shared. I argue that the degree to which a decision to implement a medical alternative is shared should be determined by taking into account six considerations: (i) how the physician and the patient rank that alternative, (ii) the individual preference scores the physician and the patient (would) assign to that alternative, (iii) the similarity of the preference scores, (iv) the similarity of the rankings, (v) the total concession size, and (vi) the similarity of the concession sizes. I explain why shared medical decisions are valuable, and sketch implications of the analysis for the physician-patient relationship.

The demographic shift, together with financial constraint, justify a re-evaluation of the trajectory of care of very old critically ill patients (VIP), defined as older than 80 years. We must avoid over- as well as under-utilisation of critical care interventions in this patient group and ensure the inclusion of health care professionals, the patient and their caregivers in the decision process. This new integrative approach mobilises expertise at each step of the process beginning prior to intensive care unit (ICU) admission and extending to long-term follow-up. In this review, several international experts have contributed to provide recommendations that can be universally applied. Our aim is to define a minimum core dataset of information to be shared and discussed prior to ICU admission and to facilitate the shared-decision-making process with the patient and their caregivers, throughout the patient journey. Documentation of uncertainty may contribute to a tailored level of care and ultimately to discussions around possible limitations of life sustaining treatments. The goal of ICU care is not only to avoid death, but more importantly to maintain an acceptable quality of life and functional autonomy after hospital discharge. Societal consideration is important to highlight, together with alternatives to ICU admission. We discuss challenges for the future and potential areas of research. In summary, this review provides a state-of-the-art current overview and aims to outline future directions to address the challenges in the treatment of VIP.

Decision-making about tracheostomy and prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) is emotionally complex. Expectations of surrogate decision-makers and physicians rarely align. Little is known about what surrogates need to make goal-concordant decisions. We sought to identify drivers of tracheostomy and PMV decision-making.

Using Grounded Theory, we performed a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews with surrogates of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) being considered for tracheostomy and physicians routinely caring for patients receiving MV. Recruitment was stopped when thematic saturation was reached. Separate codebooks were created for surrogate and physician interviews. Themes and factors affecting decision-making were identified and a theoretical model tracheostomy decision-making was developed.

43 participants (23 surrogates and 20 physicians) completed interviews. A theoretical model of themes and factors driving decision-making emerged for the data. Hope, Lack of Knowledge & Data, and Uncertainty emerged as the three main themes all which were interconnected with one another and, at times, opposed each other. Patient Wishes, Past Activity/Medical History, Short and Long-Term Outcomes, and Meaningful Recovery were key factors upon which surrogates and physicians based decision-making. The themes were the lens through which the factors were viewed and decision-making existed as a balance between surrogate emotions and understanding and physician recommendations.

Tracheostomy and prolonged MV decision-making is complex. Hope and Uncertainty were conceptual themes that often battled with one another. Lack of Knowledge & Data plagued both surrogates and physicians. Multiple tangible factors were identified that affected surrogate decision-making and physician recommendations.

Understanding this complex decision-making process has the potential to improve the information provided to surrogates and, potentially, increase the goal concordant care and alignment of surrogate and physician expectations.

Decision-making for tracheostomy and prolonged mechanical ventilation is a complex interactive process between surrogate decision-makers and providers.Using a Grounded Theory framework, a theoretical model emerged from the data with core themes of Hope, Uncertainty, and Lack of Knowledge & Data that was shared by both providers and surrogates.The core themes were the lenses through which the key decision-making factors of Patient Wishes, Past Activity/Medical History, Short and Long-Term Outcomes, and Meaningful Recovery were viewed.The theoretical model provides a roadmap to design a shared decision-making intervention to improve tracheostomy and prolonged mechanical ventilation decision-making.

The process recommendations of the Ethics Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) for ethically based decision-making in intensive care medicine are intended to create the framework for a structured procedure for seriously ill patients in intensive care. The processes require appropriate structures, e.g., for effective communication within the treatment team, with patients and relatives, legal representatives, as well as the availability of palliative medical expertise, ethical advisory committees and integrated psychosocial and spiritual care services. If the necessary competences and structures are not available in a facility, they can be consulted externally or by telemedicine if necessary. The present recommendations are based on an expert consensus and are not the result of a systematic review or a meta-analysis.

The cardiovascular geriatric population requiring intensive or critical care is a group vulnerable to adverse outcomes because of age, the critical care environment, geriatric syndromes, and multiple chronic conditions. Polypharmacy increases the risk of adverse events in this group. Several tools and aids are available to guide the clinical practice of appropriate prescribing and deprescribing. To optimize the care of the cardiovascular geriatric population, evidence-based prescribing, and deprescribing tools can be implemented by the interprofessional team consisting of the patient, their support system, critical care nurses, advanced practice clinicians, physicians, and allied health professionals.

The integration of palliative medicine is an important component in the treatment of various advanced diseases. While a German S3 guideline on palliative medicine exists for patients with incurable cancer, a recommendation for non-oncological patients and especially for palliative patients presenting in the emergency department or intensive care unit is missing to date. Based on the present consensus paper, the palliative care aspects of the respective medical disciplines are addressed. The timely integration of palliative care aims to improve quality of life and symptom control in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care.

Antibiotic therapy is commonly prescribed longer than recommended in intensive care patients (ICU). We aimed to provide insight into the decision-making process on antibiotic therapy duration in the ICU.

A qualitative study was conducted, involving direct observations of antibiotic decision-making during multidisciplinary meetings in four Dutch ICUs. The study used an observation guide, audio recordings, and detailed field notes to gather information about the discussions on antibiotic therapy duration. We described the participants' roles in the decision-making process and focused on arguments contributing to decision-making.

We observed 121 discussions on antibiotic therapy duration in sixty multidisciplinary meetings. 24.8% of discussions led to a decision to stop antibiotics immediately. In 37.2%, a prospective stop date was determined. Arguments for decisions were most often brought forward by intensivists (35.5%) and clinical microbiologists (22.3%). In 28.9% of discussions, multiple healthcare professionals participated equally in the decision. We identified 13 main argument categories. While intensivists mostly used arguments based on clinical status, clinical microbiologists used diagnostic results in the discussion.

Multidisciplinary decision-making regarding the duration of antibiotic therapy is a complex but valuable process, involving different healthcare professionals, using a variety of argument-types to determine the duration of antibiotic therapy. To optimize the decision-making process, structured discussions, involvement of relevant specialties, and clear communication and documentation of the antibiotic plan are recommended.

Patient safety incidents (PSIs) in healthcare settings are a critical concern globally, and Ghana is no exception. Addressing PSIs to improve health outcomes requires various initiatives to be implemented including improving patient safety culture, teamwork and communication between healthcare providers during handoffs. It is essential to acknowledge the significance of teamwork, communication openness, and effective handoffs in preventing and managing such incidents. These factors play a pivotal role in ensuring the well-being of patients and the overall quality of healthcare services.

This study assessed the occurrence and types of PSIs in health facilities in Ghana. It also examined the role of teamwork, handoffs and information exchange, and communication openness in response to PSIs by health professionals.

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1651 health workers in three regions of Ghana. Using a multi-staged sampling technique, the Survey on Patient Safety Culture Hospital Survey questionnaire and the nurse-reported scale were used to collect the data and it was analysed by descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and linear multiple regression model at a significance of 0.05.

There was a reported prevalence of PSIs including medication errors (30.4%), wound infections (23.3%), infusion reactions (24.7%), pressure sores (21.3%), and falls (18.7%) at least once a month. There was a satisfactory mean score for responses to adverse events (3.40), teamwork (4.18), handoffs and information exchange (3.88), and communication openness (3.84) among healthcare professionals. Teamwork, handoffs and information exchange and communication openness were significant predictors of response to PSIs, accounting for 28.3% of the variance.

Effective teamwork, handoffs and information exchange, and communication openness in the healthcare environment are critical strategies to enhance PSI response. Creating a culture that encourages error response through teamwork, communication and handoffs provides healthcare professionals with opportunities for learning and improving patient outcomes. Training programs should therefore target health professionals to improve patient safety and competency. Through the implementation of evidence-based practices and learning from past incidents, the healthcare system will be able to deliver safe and high-quality care to patients nationwide. Patient safety must be recognized as an ongoing process. Therefore, a meaningful improvement in patient outcomes requires all stakeholders' commitment.

Many patients hospitalized after severe acute brain injury are comatose and require life-sustaining therapies. Some of these patients make favorable recoveries with continued intensive care, while others do not. In addition to providing medical care, clinicians must guide surrogate decision makers through high-stakes, emotionally charged decisions about whether to continue life-sustaining therapies. These consultations require clinicians first to assess a patient's likelihood of recovery given continued life-sustaining therapies (i.e., prognosticate), then to communicate that prediction to surrogates, and, finally, to elicit and interpret the patient's preferences. At each step, both clinicians and surrogates are vulnerable to flawed decision making. Clinicians can be imprecise, biased, and overconfident when prognosticating after brain injury. Surrogates can misperceive the choice and misunderstand or misrepresent a patient's wishes, which may never have been communicated clearly. These biases can undermine the ability to reach choices congruent with patients' preferences through shared decision making (SDM). Decision science has extensively studied these biases. In this article, we apply that research to improving SDM for patients who are comatose after acute brain injury. After introducing SDM and the medical context, we describe principal decision science results as they relate to neurologic prognostication and end-of-life decisions, by both clinicians and surrogates. Based on research regarding general processes that can produce imprecise, biased, and overconfident prognoses, we propose interventions that could improve SDM, supporting clinicians and surrogates in making these challenging decisions.

The timely integration of palliative care is important for patients suffering from various advanced diseases with limited prognosis. While a German S-3-guideline on palliative care exists for patients with incurable cancer, a recommendation for non-oncological patients and especially for integration of palliative care into intensive care medicine is missing to date.

Ten German medical societies worked on recommendations on palliative care aspects in intensive care in a consensus process from 2018 to 2023.

Based on the german consensus paper, the palliative care aspects of the respective medical disciplines concerning intensive care are addressed. The recommendations partly refer to general situations, but also to specific aspects or diseases, such as geriatric issues, heart or lung diseases, encephalopathies and delirium, terminal renal diseases, oncological diseases and palliative emergencies in intensive care medicine. Measures such as non-invasive ventilation for symptom control and compassionate weaning are also included.

The timely integration of palliative care into intensive care medicine aims to improve quality of life and symptom control and also takes into acccount the often urgently needed support for patients' highly stressed relatives.

Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.

The benefit of the ICU for older patients is often debated. There is little knowledge on subjective impressions of excessive care in ICU nurses and physicians combined with objective patient data in real-life cases.

Is there a difference in treatment limitation decisions and 1-year outcomes in patients < 75 and ≥ 75 years of age, with and without concordant perceptions of excessive care by two or more ICU nurses and physicians?

This was a reanalysis of the prospective observational DISPROPRICUS study, performed in 56 ICUs. Nurses and physicians completed a daily questionnaire about the appropriateness of care for each of their patients during a 28-day period in 2014. We compared the cumulative incidence of patients with concordant perceptions of excessive care, treatment limitation decisions, and the proportion of patients attaining the combined end point (death, poor quality of life, or not being at home) at 1 year across age groups via Cox regression with propensity score weighting and Fisher exact tests.

Of 1,641 patients, 405 (25%) were ≥ 75 years of age. The cumulative incidence of concordant perceptions of excessive care was higher in older patients (13.6% vs 8.5%; P < .001). In patients with concordant perceptions of excessive care, we found no difference between age groups in risk of death (1-year mortality, 83% in both groups; P > .99; hazard ratio [HR] after weighting, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.74-1.65), treatment limitation decisions (33% vs 31%; HR after weighting, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.69-2.17), and reaching the combined end point at 1 year (90% vs 93%; P = .546). In patients without concordant perceptions of excessive care, we found a difference in risk of death (1-year mortality, 41% vs 30%; P < .001; HR after weighting, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11-1.73) and treatment limitation decisions (11% vs 5%; P < .001; HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.37-3.27); however, treatment limitation decisions were mostly documented prior to ICU admission. The risk of reaching the combined end point was higher in the older adults (61.6% vs 52.8%; P < .001).

Although the incidence of perceptions of excessive care is slightly higher in older patients, there is no difference in treatment limitation decisions and 1-year outcomes between older and younger patients once patients are identified by concordant perceptions of excessive care. Additionally, in patients without concordant perceptions, the outcomes are worse in the older adults, pleading against ageism in ICU nurses and physicians.

There is substantial institutional variability in the intensity of end-of-life care that is not explained by patient preferences. Hospital culture and institutional structures (eg, policies, practices, protocols, resources) might contribute to potentially nonbeneficial high-intensity life-sustaining treatments near the end of life.

To understand the role of hospital culture in the everyday dynamics of high-intensity end-of-life care.

This comparative ethnographic study was conducted at 3 academic hospitals in California and Washington that differed in end-of-life care intensity based on measures in the Dartmouth Atlas and included hospital-based clinicians, administrators, and leaders. Data were deductively and inductively analyzed using thematic analysis through an iterative coding process.

Institution-specific policies, practices, protocols, and resources and their role in the everyday dynamics of potentially nonbeneficial, high-intensity life-sustaining treatments.

A total of 113 semistructured, in-depth interviews (66 women [58.4%]; 23 [20.4%] Asian, 1 [0.9%] Black, 5 [4.4%] Hispanic, 7 [6.2%] multiracial, and 70 [61.9%] White individuals) were conducted with inpatient-based clinicians and administrators between December 2018 and June 2022. Respondents at all hospitals described default tendencies to provide high-intensity treatments that they believed were universal in US hospitals. They also reported that proactive, concerted efforts among multiple care teams were required to deescalate high-intensity treatments. Efforts to deescalate were vulnerable to being undermined at multiple points during a patient's care trajectory by any individual or entity. Respondents described institution-specific policies, practices, protocols, and resources that engendered broadly held understandings of the importance of deescalating nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments. Respondents at different hospitals reported different policies and practices that encouraged or discouraged deescalation. They described how these institutional structures contributed to the culture and everyday dynamics of end-of-life care at their institution.

In this qualitative study, clinicians, administrators, and leaders at the hospitals studied reported that they work in a hospital culture in which high-intensity end-of-life care constitutes a default trajectory. Institutional structures and hospital cultures shape the everyday dynamics by which clinicians may deescalate end-of-life patients from this trajectory. Individual behaviors or interactions may fail to mitigate potentially nonbeneficial high-intensity life-sustaining treatments if extant hospital culture or a lack of supportive policies and practices undermine individual efforts. Hospital cultures need to be considered when developing policies and interventions to decrease potentially nonbeneficial, high-intensity life-sustaining treatments.

Patients with severe heart failure undergo highly invasive and advanced therapies with uncertain treatment outcomes. For these patients, shared decision-making is necessary. To date, the nursing perspective of the decision-making process for patients facing difficulties and how nurses can support patients in this process have not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the perceptions of critical care nurses regarding situations with patients with severe heart failure that require difficult decision-making, and their role in supporting these patients.

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 certified nurse specialists in critical care nursing at nine hospitals in Japan. A qualitative inductive method was used and the derived relationships among the themes were visually structured and represented.

The nurses' perceptions on patients' difficult situations in decision-making were identified as follows: painful decisions under uncertainties; tense relationships; wavering emotions during decision-making; difficulties in coping with worsening medical conditions; patients' wishes that are difficult to realize or estimate; and difficulties in transitioning from advanced medical care. Critical care nurses' roles were summarized into six themes and performed collaboratively within the nursing team. Of these, the search for meaning and value was fundamental. Two positions underpin the role of critical care nurses. The first aims to provide direct support and includes partnerships and rights advocacy. The second aims to provide a holistic perspective to enable necessary adjustments, as indicated by situation assessments and mediation. By crossing various boundaries, co-creating, and forming a good circular relationship in the search for meaning and values, the possibility of expanding treatment and recuperation options may be considered.

Patients with severe heart failure have difficulty participating in shared decision-making. Critical care nurses should collaborate within the nursing team to improve interprofessional shared decision-making by providing decisional support to patients that focuses on values and meaning.

The measurement of quality indicators supports quality improvement initiatives. The German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) has published quality indicators for intensive care medicine for the fourth time now. After a scheduled evaluation after three years, changes in several indicators were made. Other indicators were not changed or only minimally. The focus remained strongly on relevant treatment processes like management of analgesia and sedation, mechanical ventilation and weaning, and infections in the ICU. Another focus was communication inside the ICU. The number of 10 indicators remained the same. The development method was more structured and transparency was increased by adding new features like evidence levels or author contribution and potential conflicts of interest. These quality indicators should be used in the peer review in intensive care, a method endorsed by the DIVI. Other forms of measurement and evaluation are also reasonable, for example in quality management. This fourth edition of the quality indicators will be updated in the future to reflect the recently published recommendations on the structure of intensive care units by the DIVI.