title: Critical care physicians' approaches to negotiating with surrogate decision makers: a qualitative study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To describe how critical care physicians manage conflicts with surrogates about withdrawing or withholding patients' life support.
  
  
  METHODS
  Qualitative analysis of key informant interviews with critical care physicians during 2010. We transcribed interviews verbatim and used grounded theory to code and revise a taxonomy of themes and to identify illustrative quotes.
  
  
  METHODS
  Three academic medical centers, one academic-affiliated medical center, and four private practice groups or private hospitals in a large Midwestern city
  
  
  METHODS
  Fourteen critical care physicians.
  
  
  METHODS
  None.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Physicians reported tailoring their approach to address specific reasons for disagreement with surrogates. Five common approaches were identified: 1) building trust; 2) educating and informing; 3) providing surrogates more time; 4) adjusting surrogate and physician roles; and 5) highlighting specific values. When mistrust was an issue, physicians endeavored to build a more trusting relationship with the surrogate before readdressing decision making. Physicians also reported correcting misunderstandings by providing targeted education, and some reported highlighting specific patient, surrogate, or physician values that they hoped would guide surrogates to agree with them. When surrogates struggled with decisionmaking roles, physicians attempted to reinforce the concept of substituted judgment. Physicians noted that some surrogates needed time to "come to terms" with the patent's illness before agreeing with physicians. Many physicians had witnessed colleagues negotiate in ways they found objectionable such as providing misleading information, injecting their own values into the negotiation or behaving unprofessionally toward surrogates. Although some physicians viewed their efforts to encourage surrogates' agreement as persuasive, others strongly denied persuading surrogates and described their actions as "guiding" or "negotiating."
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Physicians reported using a tailored approach to resolve decisional conflicts about life support and attempted to change surrogates' decisions in accordance with what the physician thought was in the patients' best interests. Although physicians acknowledged their efforts to change surrogates' decisions, many physicians did not perceive these efforts as persuasive.
authors.affiliation: Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. drbrush@gmail.com
authors.forename: David R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Brush
authors.forename: Crystal E
authors.initials: CE
authors.lastname: Brown
authors.forename: G Caleb
authors.initials: GC
authors.lastname: Alexander
mesh_terms: D003422:Critical Care / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D008297:Male; D017008:Negotiating / Q000379:methods*; D010353:Patient Education as Topic / Q000379:methods; D010819:Physician's Role; D010820:Physicians; D020458:Third-Party Consent; D013997:Time Factors; D035502:Trust; D028761:Withholding Treatment
references.citation: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Mar;58(3):533-8
references.pmid: 20158556
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 Aug 11;358(9280):483-8
references.pmid: 11513933
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 2004 Aug;32(8):1781-4
references.pmid: 15286559
references.citation: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997 Jan;155(1):15-20
references.pmid: 9001282
references.citation: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009 Nov 1;180(9):853-60
references.pmid: 19644049
references.citation: Chest. 2011 Feb;139(2):424-429
references.pmid: 21285056
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1990 Feb 1;322(5):309-15
references.pmid: 2296273
references.citation: Chest. 2008 Oct;134(4):835-843
references.pmid: 18842916
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 2001 Jan;29(1):197-201
references.pmid: 11176185
references.citation: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009 Aug 15;180(4):320-5
references.pmid: 19498057
references.citation: Am J Crit Care. 2006 Sep;15(5):480-9; quiz 490
references.pmid: 16926369
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1996 Nov 1;125(9):763-9
references.pmid: 8929011
references.citation: Intensive Care Med. 2009 Dec;35(12):2068-77
references.pmid: 19756499
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2003 Sep 18;349(12):1123-32
references.pmid: 13679526
references.citation: J Palliat Med. 2007 Dec;10(6):1298-305
references.pmid: 18095808
references.citation: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 Oct;158(4):1163-7
references.pmid: 9769276
references.citation: Intensive Care Med. 2003 Sep;29(9):1489-97
references.pmid: 12879243
references.citation: JAMA. 2003 Sep 3;290(9):1166-72
references.pmid: 12952998
references.citation: JAMA. 1992 Apr 22-29;267(16):2221-6
references.pmid: 1556799
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2001 May;16(5):283-9
references.pmid: 11359545
references.citation: Chest. 1990 Apr;97(4):949-58
references.pmid: 2182302
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):743-50
references.pmid: 20029347
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Mar;23(3):267-74
references.pmid: 18172738
references.citation: JAMA. 2000 Jul 19;284(3):357-62
references.pmid: 10891968
references.citation: Chest. 2010 Feb;137(2):280-7
references.pmid: 19762549
references.citation: Am J Med. 1990 Aug;89(2):185-94
references.pmid: 2382667
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2007 Mar 12;167(5):461-7
references.pmid: 17353493
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb;35(2):605-22
references.pmid: 17205007
references.citation: Chest. 2011 Feb;139(2):243-244
references.pmid: 21285052