An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement

Responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units

Gabriel T. Bosslet, Thaddeus M. Pope, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Bernard Lo, Robert D. Truog, Cynda H. Rushton, J. Randall Curtis, Dee W. Ford, Molly Osborne, Cheryl Misak, David H. Au, Elie Azoulay, Baruch Brody, Brenda G. Fahy, Jesse B. Hall, Jozef Kesecioglu, Alexander A. Kon, Kathleen O. Lindell, Douglas B. White

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

191 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There is controversy about how to manage requests by patients or surrogates for treatments that clinicians believe should not be administered. Purpose: This multisociety statement provides recommendations to prevent and manage intractable disagreements about the use of such treatments in intensive care units. Methods: The recommendations were developed using an iterative consensus process, including expert committee development and peer review by designated committees of each of the participating professional societies (American Thoracic Society, American Association for Critical Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, European Society for Intensive Care Medicine, and Society of Critical Care). Main Results: The committee recommends: (1) Institutions should implement strategies to prevent intractable treatment conflicts, including proactive communication and early involvement of expert consultants. (2) The term "potentially inappropriate" should be used, rather than futile, to describe treatments that have at least some chance of accomplishing the effect sought by the patient, but clinicians believe that competing ethical considerations justify not providing them. Clinicians should explain and advocate for the treatment plan they believe is appropriate. Conflicts regarding potentially inappropriate treatments that remain intractable despite intensive communication and negotiation should be managed by a fair process of conflict resolution; this process should include hospital review, attempts to find a willing provider at another institution, and opportunity for external review of decisions. When time pressures make it infeasible to complete all steps of the conflict-resolution process and clinicians have a high degree of certainty that the requested treatment is outside accepted practice, they should seek procedural oversight to the extent allowed by the clinical situation and need not provide the requested treatment. (3) Use of the term "futile" should be restricted to the rare situations in which surrogates request interventions that simply cannot accomplish their intended physiologic goal. Clinicians should not provide futile interventions. (4) The medical profession should lead public engagement efforts and advocate for policies and legislation about when life-prolonging technologies should not be used. Conclusions: The multisociety statement on responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units provides guidance for clinicians to prevent and manage disputes in patients with advanced critical illness.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1318-1330
Number of pages13
JournalAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Volume191
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Intensive Care Units
Negotiating
Critical Care
Therapeutics
Communication
Peer Review
Dissent and Disputes
Advisory Committees
Consultants
Legislation
Critical Illness
Consensus
Nurses
Medicine
Technology

Keywords

  • Conflict resolution
  • End-of-life care
  • Ethics committees
  • Futility
  • Shared decision making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement : Responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units. / Bosslet, Gabriel T.; Pope, Thaddeus M.; Rubenfeld, Gordon D.; Lo, Bernard; Truog, Robert D.; Rushton, Cynda H.; Curtis, J. Randall; Ford, Dee W.; Osborne, Molly; Misak, Cheryl; Au, David H.; Azoulay, Elie; Brody, Baruch; Fahy, Brenda G.; Hall, Jesse B.; Kesecioglu, Jozef; Kon, Alexander A.; Lindell, Kathleen O.; White, Douglas B.

In: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 191, No. 11, 01.06.2015, p. 1318-1330.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bosslet, GT, Pope, TM, Rubenfeld, GD, Lo, B, Truog, RD, Rushton, CH, Curtis, JR, Ford, DW, Osborne, M, Misak, C, Au, DH, Azoulay, E, Brody, B, Fahy, BG, Hall, JB, Kesecioglu, J, Kon, AA, Lindell, KO & White, DB 2015, 'An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement: Responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units', American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 191, no. 11, pp. 1318-1330. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201505-0924ST
Bosslet, Gabriel T. ; Pope, Thaddeus M. ; Rubenfeld, Gordon D. ; Lo, Bernard ; Truog, Robert D. ; Rushton, Cynda H. ; Curtis, J. Randall ; Ford, Dee W. ; Osborne, Molly ; Misak, Cheryl ; Au, David H. ; Azoulay, Elie ; Brody, Baruch ; Fahy, Brenda G. ; Hall, Jesse B. ; Kesecioglu, Jozef ; Kon, Alexander A. ; Lindell, Kathleen O. ; White, Douglas B. / An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement : Responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units. In: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 191, No. 11. pp. 1318-1330.
@article{ee46878106964cf3a99f9893b0955d62,
title = "An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement: Responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units",
abstract = "Background: There is controversy about how to manage requests by patients or surrogates for treatments that clinicians believe should not be administered. Purpose: This multisociety statement provides recommendations to prevent and manage intractable disagreements about the use of such treatments in intensive care units. Methods: The recommendations were developed using an iterative consensus process, including expert committee development and peer review by designated committees of each of the participating professional societies (American Thoracic Society, American Association for Critical Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, European Society for Intensive Care Medicine, and Society of Critical Care). Main Results: The committee recommends: (1) Institutions should implement strategies to prevent intractable treatment conflicts, including proactive communication and early involvement of expert consultants. (2) The term {"}potentially inappropriate{"} should be used, rather than futile, to describe treatments that have at least some chance of accomplishing the effect sought by the patient, but clinicians believe that competing ethical considerations justify not providing them. Clinicians should explain and advocate for the treatment plan they believe is appropriate. Conflicts regarding potentially inappropriate treatments that remain intractable despite intensive communication and negotiation should be managed by a fair process of conflict resolution; this process should include hospital review, attempts to find a willing provider at another institution, and opportunity for external review of decisions. When time pressures make it infeasible to complete all steps of the conflict-resolution process and clinicians have a high degree of certainty that the requested treatment is outside accepted practice, they should seek procedural oversight to the extent allowed by the clinical situation and need not provide the requested treatment. (3) Use of the term {"}futile{"} should be restricted to the rare situations in which surrogates request interventions that simply cannot accomplish their intended physiologic goal. Clinicians should not provide futile interventions. (4) The medical profession should lead public engagement efforts and advocate for policies and legislation about when life-prolonging technologies should not be used. Conclusions: The multisociety statement on responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units provides guidance for clinicians to prevent and manage disputes in patients with advanced critical illness.",
keywords = "Conflict resolution, End-of-life care, Ethics committees, Futility, Shared decision making",
author = "Bosslet, {Gabriel T.} and Pope, {Thaddeus M.} and Rubenfeld, {Gordon D.} and Bernard Lo and Truog, {Robert D.} and Rushton, {Cynda H.} and Curtis, {J. Randall} and Ford, {Dee W.} and Molly Osborne and Cheryl Misak and Au, {David H.} and Elie Azoulay and Baruch Brody and Fahy, {Brenda G.} and Hall, {Jesse B.} and Jozef Kesecioglu and Kon, {Alexander A.} and Lindell, {Kathleen O.} and White, {Douglas B.}",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1164/rccm.201505-0924ST",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "191",
pages = "1318--1330",
journal = "American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "1073-449X",
publisher = "American Thoracic Society",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement

T2 - Responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units

AU - Bosslet, Gabriel T.

AU - Pope, Thaddeus M.

AU - Rubenfeld, Gordon D.

AU - Lo, Bernard

AU - Truog, Robert D.

AU - Rushton, Cynda H.

AU - Curtis, J. Randall

AU - Ford, Dee W.

AU - Osborne, Molly

AU - Misak, Cheryl

AU - Au, David H.

AU - Azoulay, Elie

AU - Brody, Baruch

AU - Fahy, Brenda G.

AU - Hall, Jesse B.

AU - Kesecioglu, Jozef

AU - Kon, Alexander A.

AU - Lindell, Kathleen O.

AU - White, Douglas B.

PY - 2015/6/1

Y1 - 2015/6/1

N2 - Background: There is controversy about how to manage requests by patients or surrogates for treatments that clinicians believe should not be administered. Purpose: This multisociety statement provides recommendations to prevent and manage intractable disagreements about the use of such treatments in intensive care units. Methods: The recommendations were developed using an iterative consensus process, including expert committee development and peer review by designated committees of each of the participating professional societies (American Thoracic Society, American Association for Critical Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, European Society for Intensive Care Medicine, and Society of Critical Care). Main Results: The committee recommends: (1) Institutions should implement strategies to prevent intractable treatment conflicts, including proactive communication and early involvement of expert consultants. (2) The term "potentially inappropriate" should be used, rather than futile, to describe treatments that have at least some chance of accomplishing the effect sought by the patient, but clinicians believe that competing ethical considerations justify not providing them. Clinicians should explain and advocate for the treatment plan they believe is appropriate. Conflicts regarding potentially inappropriate treatments that remain intractable despite intensive communication and negotiation should be managed by a fair process of conflict resolution; this process should include hospital review, attempts to find a willing provider at another institution, and opportunity for external review of decisions. When time pressures make it infeasible to complete all steps of the conflict-resolution process and clinicians have a high degree of certainty that the requested treatment is outside accepted practice, they should seek procedural oversight to the extent allowed by the clinical situation and need not provide the requested treatment. (3) Use of the term "futile" should be restricted to the rare situations in which surrogates request interventions that simply cannot accomplish their intended physiologic goal. Clinicians should not provide futile interventions. (4) The medical profession should lead public engagement efforts and advocate for policies and legislation about when life-prolonging technologies should not be used. Conclusions: The multisociety statement on responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units provides guidance for clinicians to prevent and manage disputes in patients with advanced critical illness.

AB - Background: There is controversy about how to manage requests by patients or surrogates for treatments that clinicians believe should not be administered. Purpose: This multisociety statement provides recommendations to prevent and manage intractable disagreements about the use of such treatments in intensive care units. Methods: The recommendations were developed using an iterative consensus process, including expert committee development and peer review by designated committees of each of the participating professional societies (American Thoracic Society, American Association for Critical Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, European Society for Intensive Care Medicine, and Society of Critical Care). Main Results: The committee recommends: (1) Institutions should implement strategies to prevent intractable treatment conflicts, including proactive communication and early involvement of expert consultants. (2) The term "potentially inappropriate" should be used, rather than futile, to describe treatments that have at least some chance of accomplishing the effect sought by the patient, but clinicians believe that competing ethical considerations justify not providing them. Clinicians should explain and advocate for the treatment plan they believe is appropriate. Conflicts regarding potentially inappropriate treatments that remain intractable despite intensive communication and negotiation should be managed by a fair process of conflict resolution; this process should include hospital review, attempts to find a willing provider at another institution, and opportunity for external review of decisions. When time pressures make it infeasible to complete all steps of the conflict-resolution process and clinicians have a high degree of certainty that the requested treatment is outside accepted practice, they should seek procedural oversight to the extent allowed by the clinical situation and need not provide the requested treatment. (3) Use of the term "futile" should be restricted to the rare situations in which surrogates request interventions that simply cannot accomplish their intended physiologic goal. Clinicians should not provide futile interventions. (4) The medical profession should lead public engagement efforts and advocate for policies and legislation about when life-prolonging technologies should not be used. Conclusions: The multisociety statement on responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units provides guidance for clinicians to prevent and manage disputes in patients with advanced critical illness.

KW - Conflict resolution

KW - End-of-life care

KW - Ethics committees

KW - Futility

KW - Shared decision making

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930470895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930470895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1164/rccm.201505-0924ST

DO - 10.1164/rccm.201505-0924ST

M3 - Article

VL - 191

SP - 1318

EP - 1330

JO - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

JF - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

SN - 1073-449X

IS - 11

ER -