Communication practices in physician decision-making for an unstable critically ill patient with end-stage cancer.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making has become the standard of care for most medical treatments. However, little is known about physician communication practices in the decision making for unstable critically ill patients with known end-stage disease. OBJECTIVE: To describe communication practices of physicians making treatment decisions for unstable critically ill patients with end-stage cancer, using the framework of shared decision-making. DESIGN: Analysis of audiotaped encounters between physicians and a standardized patient, in a high-fidelity simulation scenario, to identify best practice communication behaviors. The simulation depicted a 78-year-old man with metastatic gastric cancer, life-threatening hypoxia, and stable preferences to avoid intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation. Blinded coders assessed the encounters for verbal communication behaviors associated with handling emotions and discussion of end-of-life goals. We calculated a score for skill at handling emotions (0-6) and at discussing end of life goals (0-16). SUBJECTS: Twenty-seven hospital-based physicians. RESULTS: Independent variables included physician demographics and communication behaviors. We used treatment decisions (ICU admission and initiation of palliation) as a proxy for accurate identification of patient preferences. Eight physicians admitted the patient to the ICU, and 16 initiated palliation. Physicians varied, but on average demonstrated low skill at handling emotions (mean, 0.7) and moderate skill at discussing end-of-life goals (mean, 7.4). We found that skill at discussing end-of-life goals was associated with initiation of palliation (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to analyze the decision making of physicians managing unstable critically ill patients with end-stage cancer using the framework of shared decision-making.

The incidence of unacceptable movement with motor evoked potentials during craniotomy for aneurysm clipping.

OBJECTIVE: To review the experience at a single institution with motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring during intracranial aneurysm surgery to determine the incidence of unacceptable movement. METHODS: Neurophysiology event logs and anesthetic records from 220 craniotomies for aneurysm clipping were reviewed for unacceptable patient movement or reason for cessation of MEPs. Muscle relaxants were not given after intubation. Transcranial MEPs were recorded from bilateral abductor hallucis and abductor pollicis muscles. MEP stimulus intensity was increased up to 500 V until evoked potential responses were detectable. RESULTS: Out of 220 patients, 7 (3.2%) exhibited unacceptable movement with MEP stimulation-2 had nociception-induced movement and 5 had excessive field movement. In all but one case, MEP monitoring could be resumed, yielding a 99.5% monitoring rate. CONCLUSIONS: With the anesthetic and monitoring regimen, the authors were able to record MEPs of the upper and lower extremities in all patients and found only 3.2% demonstrated unacceptable movement. With a suitable anesthetic technique, MEP monitoring in the upper and lower extremities appears to be feasible in most patients and should not be withheld because of concern for movement during neurovascular surgery.