Elsevier

Journal of Critical Care

Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2010, Pages 413-419
Journal of Critical Care

ICU Triage/Quality of Life
Limiting life-sustaining treatment in German intensive care units: A multiprofessional survey

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.06.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose

Deciding about the limitation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) is a major challenge for intensive care medicine. The aim of the study was to investigate the practices and perspectives of German intensive care nurses and physicians on limiting LST.

Methods

We conducted an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire survey among the 268 nurses and 95 physicians on all 10 intensive care units of the Munich University Hospital, Germany.

Results

The response rate was 53%. Of all respondents, 91% reported being confronted with the topic at least once a month. Although all reported limiting cardiopulmonary resuscitation, almost no one reported limiting artificial hydration. Half of nurses and junior physicians felt uncertain about the decision-making process. Junior physicians were most dissatisfied with their training for this task and expressed the highest fear of litigation. Nurses were less satisfied than physicians with the communication process. Both nurses and relatives were not routinely involved in decision making. There is no standardized documentation practice, and many notes are not readily accessible to nurses.

Conclusions

Limiting LST is common in German intensive care units. The major shortcomings are team communication, communication with the patient's family, and documentation of the decision-making process.

Introduction

One of the most frequent ethical problems faced by clinical medicine is end-of-life decision making, particularly in the context of intensive care medicine [1]. It has been established for a number of countries that 50% to 90% of deaths in intensive care units (ICUs) are associated with withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (LST), corresponding to 6% to 11% of all patients admitted to ICUs [2], [3]. End-of-life decisions are a complex social phenomenon. In multiprofessional environments such as an ICU, various professions with different professional ethics, attitudes, and experiences have to come to a shared decision. Intercultural aspects and the organizational hierarchy of authority and accountability contribute to complexity [4], [5], [6]. However, most empiric studies so far did not investigate these different levels of hierarchy and compare, for example, the perspectives of junior and senior health care professionals.

We therefore aimed to study the different perspectives of intensive care physicians and nurses on end-of-life decision making, both on senior and junior levels. We were interested in their experiences regarding (1) the perceived frequency of limiting LST (=withdrawing or withholding LST) and (2) the specific forms of treatment limited, (3) level of uncertainty and distress when confronted with end-of-life decisions, (4) the quality of the communication process and outcome, and (5) the practice of documentation.

We focused on the situation in Germany. End-of-life decision making is increasingly being discussed in Germany, both publicly and professionally [7]. However, there are only 2 published empirical studies on the practice of end-of-life decision making in German speaking ICUs and the perspectives of intensive care clinicians. In 1998, a pilot survey among a small sample of ICU physicians in Innsbruck, Austria, indicated that there is much uncertainty, and withholding is given priority over withdrawing [8]. In a survey among members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine done in 1999, German intensivists reported admitting even patients with a dismal prognosis on the ICU and favoring withholding over withdrawing treatment [9].

Hierarchical hospital structures and a special relationship between the academically trained physicians and the nonacademically trained nurses who traditionally focus more on basic body care than medical treatment are hallmarks that make Germany an interesting field of study for these research questions. Our hypothesis was that based on this professional culture, German nurses and physicians show substantial heterogeneity in end-of-life decision making and perceive major problems in end-of-life communication.

Section snippets

Sample

All physicians and nurses working in 1 of the 10 adult ICUs of the University Hospital of Munich, Germany, were invited to participate in the study. The survey was part of a longitudinal evaluation study of a hospital ethics policy. Physicians included attending physicians, residents, and interns. The nursing staff comprised all examined nurses, with or without a special qualification in intensive care nursing.

Survey instrument

Each participant was asked to complete a 25-item questionnaire written in German. To

Results

The questionnaire was sent to 363 health care professionals—268 nurses and 95 physicians. From the returned 204 questionnaires, 7 were not analyzable due to missing demographic data. Among the 197 analyzed questionnaires (53%), 149 came from nurses (response rate, 56%) and 48 from physicians (response rate, 51%). Two thirds of the respondents were women (n = 130, 66%; male: n = 67, 34%), and three quarters were nurses (n = 149, 76%; physicians: n = 48, 24%). Regarding the professional position,

Discussion

The survey had a response rate of above 50%, which is in the expected range for a survey among health care professionals [10]. The data show that German intensive care clinicians are frequently confronted with the question of limiting LST. The median frequency reported by junior physicians is once a week. According to the local hospital statistics, the approximate number of admissions to an ICU is 10 per week. This implies that every 10th patient poses the need to decide on limiting LST. This

Conclusions

This study is the first to provide empirical data on the limitation of LST in German ICUs. The survey of ICU physicians and nurses indicates a high prevalence of limiting LST, except for limiting artificial nutrition, hydration, and mechanical ventilation. Despite the high prevalence, there are major deficits in team communication, documentation practices, and the involvement of the patient's family. Professional training and continuing education should intensify efforts in teaching

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support of the medical and nursing boards of the Munich University Hospital and the active collaboration of multiple head nurses and attending physicians in the ICUs. Special thanks are due to Birgit Müller and Peter Jacobs from the nursing management for advisory help. The authors are also grateful for creative ideas and critical appraisal of the study by all members of the research working group at the Interdisciplinary Center for Palliative Medicine, Munich.

References (30)

  • JoxR.J. et al.

    Substitute decision making in medicine: comparative analysis of the ethico-legal discourse in England and Germany

    Med Health Care Philos

    (2008)
  • SchobersbergerW. et al.

    Implementing limited therapy methods in intensive care units: discontinuing therapy, reducing therapy and withholding therapy in intensive care units of the Innsbruck University Clinics

    Wien Klin Wochenschr

    (1999)
  • VincentJ.L.

    Forgoing life support in western European intensive care units: the results of an ethical questionnaire

    Crit Care Med

    (1999)
  • WoodG.G. et al.

    Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy in a Canadian intensive care unit

    Can J Anaesth

    (1995)
  • NavaS. et al.

    End-of-life decision-making in respiratory intermediate care units: a European survey

    Eur Respir J

    (2007)
  • Cited by (53)

    • Diagnosis and decision making for patients with disorders of consciousness: A survey among family members

      2015, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Their attitudes toward life-sustaining treatment varied according to the specific forms of treatment: while most would forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation and artificial ventilation in both disorders, few would withhold antibiotics or artificial nutrition and hydration. This differentiation between forms of life-sustaining treatment is a well-known feature in end-of-life decision-making.29,30 Yet, surveys among physicians have yielded a much higher readiness to forgo life-sustaining treatment including artificial nutrition and hydration.31-33

    • A novel questionnaire to measure staff perception of end-of-life decision making in the intensive care unit-Development and psychometric testing

      2015, Journal of Critical Care
      Citation Excerpt :

      Most scales found differences between nurses' and physicians' perceptions. This was expected from previous surveys, which showed that nurses are less satisfied with EOL decision making [12,15], rate team interaction more negatively [37,38], and experience more moral distress than physicians [38]. Moreover, scales were related to satisfaction with EOL decision making and communication and emotional exhaustion, the first emerging symptom of burnout.

    • Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the End-of-Life Decision-Making and Staff Stress Questionnaire

      2020, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      The structural validity of the questionnaire was further tested through the relationship between the subscales of C-EIDECS and other variables. Previous studies have shown that nurses are less involved and less satisfied with EOL decisions-making than physicians, have more negative evaluations of teamwork, and experience more ethical dilemmas (Jox et al., 2010; Noome, Dijkstra, van, & Vloet, 2016), which is consistent with the results obtained in the present investigation. Furthermore, there is a correlation between satisfaction with EOL decision making, communication, emotional exhaustion and stress overload.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The work of R.J.J. was supported by a fellowship of the Bavarian Research Foundation, Munich, Germany (PIZ 74/05).

    View full text