Background: End-of-life (EOL) care is an important aspect of practice in the intensive care unit (ICU), where approximately one of every five patients may die.
Objective: The objective of this study was to describe clinicians' experiences with the 3 Wishes Project (3WP) and understand the influence of the project on care in the ICU.
Design: The 3WP is a palliative care intervention in which clinicians elicit and implement final wishes for patients dying in the ICU; it had been implemented for seven months at the time of this study. This mixed-methods study includes quantitative data from clinician surveys and qualitative data from clinician focus groups.
Setting: A 24-bed medical ICU in a tertiary academic center.
Subjects: Perspectives of 97 clinicians working in the ICU during the study period were obtained by self-administered surveys. Five focus groups with 25 nurses and 5 physicians were held, digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed.
Measurements and Results: During the 7-month period, 67 decedents and their families participated in the 3WP. The overarching concept identified through analysis of the survey and focus group data is that the 3WP improves EOL care in the ICU, which was supported by three main themes: (1) The 3WP facilitates meaningful EOL care; (2) The 3WP has a positive impact on nurses and physicians; and (3) clinicians observe a positive influence of the 3WP on families.
Conclusions: This patient-centered and family-partnered intervention facilitates meaningful EOL care, favorably impacting the ICU team and positively influencing family members.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a values clarification tool, the Short Graphic Values History Tool (GVHT), designed to support person-centred decision making during serious illness.
METHODS: The development phase included input from experts and laypersons and assessed acceptability with patients/family members. In the validation phase, we recruited additional participants into a before-after study. Our primary validation hypothesis was that the tool would reduce scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at 1-2 weeks of follow-up. Our secondary validation hypotheses were that the tool would improve values clarity (reduce scores) more than other DCS subscales and increase engagement in advance care planning (ACP) processes related to identification and discussion of one's values.
RESULTS: In the development phase, the tool received positive overall ratings from 22 patients/family members in hospital (mean score 4.3; 1=very poor; 5=very good) and family practice (mean score 4.5) settings. In the validation phase, we enrolled 157 patients (mean age 71.8 years) from family practice, cancer clinic and hospital settings. After tool completion, decisional conflict decreased (-6.7 points, 95% CI -11.1 to -2.3, p=0.003; 0–100 scale; N=100), with the most improvement seen in the values clarity subscale (-10.0 points, 95% CI -17.3 to -2.7, p=0.008; N=100), and the ACP-Values process score increased (+0.4 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.6, p=0.001; 1–5 scale; N=61).
CONCLUSIONS: The Short GVHT is acceptable to end users and has some measure of validity. Further study to evaluate its impact on decision making during serious illness is warranted.