Family & Societal Nursing
patient losses associated with chronic illness aided some families with the final LST decision.1,5 Tilden and re- searchers1 observed that family members of patients with acute illnesses or injuries recognized futility of treatment abruptly after a period of denial and cognitive dissonance. Thus, family experiences may be different if the patient has a sudden, unexpected illness versus an exacerbation of a chronic illness.
Researchers have demonstrated that the withdrawal of LST process occurs within a family context. Usually multi- ple family members are involved in making LST deci- sions.1,5,10,11 Although one family member may facilitate the family decision-making process,9 most families pull together and decide as a group.5 Family decision making about LST is a complex process.1,5,10,11 Tilden and researchers1 found that families making withdrawal of LST decisions moved through four phases that included recognition of futility, coming to terms, shouldering the surrogate role, and facing the question. Several factors have been found to influence family members’ decisions related to withdrawal of LST and include: a poor expected quality of life,1,5,12,13 a poor prog- nosis,5,12,13 the patient’s current level of suffering,1,5,12–14 and previously discussed advance directives.1,9–13 Participating in end-of-life decisions related to withholding and with- drawing LST is quite a burden for families.1,5,15 Family mem- bers have described participating in the process of with-
Introduction
MOST OF THE PATIENTS who die in U.S. hospitals do so un-der circumstances where decisions need to be made about how long to pursue life-extending treatments.1 The majority of end of life decisions are made by patients’ fam- ily members as patients are often too critically ill to partici- pate in decision making.2–5 Approximately 1 in 5 patients die in critical care units2 with over 90% of deaths in critical care preceded by decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustain- ing therapies.7,8 Health care providers collaborate with pa- tients’ families as decisions are made to limit treatment and care for both patients and their families during the dying process. This study addresses an important problem that even though withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (LST) oc- curs commonly in critical care units, little is known about the family experience during this process. Better under- standing of the experience of families will guide interven- tions for these vulnerable patients and their families.
Significant contributions have been made to under- standing families as they participate in end-of-life decision making. Important information has been found related to the patient’s illness context, family context, and family and health care provider interactions. The nature of the pa- tient’s illness may influence the family decision-making process related to LST. For example, prior experiences of
JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE Volume 11, Number 8, 2008 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2008.0015
In Their Own Time: The Family Experience during the Process of Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapy
Debra Wiegand, R.N., M.B.E., Ph.D., CCRN, FAAN
Abstract
Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (LST) occurs commonly in critical care units, yet little is known about the family experience with this process. The purpose of this study was to understand the lived experience of families participating in the process of withdrawal of LST from a family member with an unexpected, life- threatening illness or injury. A hermeneutic phenomenological approach was used as nineteen families were interviewed and observed. Within and across family analyses were conducted. Methodological rigor was es- tablished and redundancy was achieved. The categories that evolved from the data included: this happens to other families, time to understand the severity of the illness or injury, time to see if health would be restored, riding a roller coaster, family readiness: willingness to consider withdrawal of LST as a possible option, one step at a time, family readiness: time to make a decision, the family will go on, and waiting for a miracle. The family experience participating in the process of withdrawal of LST happened for families “in their own time.” The results of this study have important implications for clinical practice and future research.
1115
Baltimore, Maryland.
WIEGAND1116
drawal of LST as difficult, intense, painful, overwhelming, devastating, and traumatic.1
Interactions between families and health care providers are important when making end of life decisions. Trust be- tween families and health care providers is crucial. Mutual trust between families and health care providers is especially important in the context of making LST decisions.16 Swigart and colleagues9 reported that families were unwilling to forgo LST when there was not trust between the family and the patient’s physician. Norton and researchers17 found that trust eroded when family members received misinformed or mixed messages about their critically ill family member.
Families have reported being helped with end-of-life de- cisions by nursing and physician behaviors such as: frequent and clear communication, clarification of family roles, col- laborative (shared) decision making, facilitating family con- sensus, accommodating family grief and consultation with clergy.1,5,10,12,13,17,18 Families were also helped when health care providers were direct, honest, and realistic as they guided and facilitated the family through the withdrawal of LST process.1,17
The purpose of this study was to understand the lived ex- perience of families participating in the process of with- drawal of LST from a family member with an unexpected, life-threatening illness or injury. This study differs from pre- vious investigations in that families were studied prospec- tively as they participated in the process of withdrawal of LST, the study focused on families with an acutely ill or in- jured family member, and the study was conducted from a family perspective, thus including multiple family members.
Method
A hermeneutic phenomenological approach was used to study families as they participated in the process of with- drawal of LST. This study sought to answer the question: What do families experience during the process of with- drawal of LST from a family member with an unexpected, life-threatening illness or injury? Van Manen’s19,20 method- ology for conducting phenomenological research was used to guide the investigation. Families were interviewed and observed over a period of time (days to weeks) as they in- teracted with the patient, with each other, sat in family wait- ing rooms, stood in hallways, and interacted in family meet- ings. Study procedures and an additional analysis were reported previously.18
Sample and setting
The family sample was recruited from three intensive care units (ICUs) of a single university medical center. Purposive sampling was used to obtain a diverse sample of families. Family members were considered for participation in the study if the patient was unable to participate in decision making, had an unexpected (previously healthy), life-threat- ening illness, or injury that was defined as an acute condi- tion (less than 1-month duration), necessitating hospitaliza- tion in a critical care unit, and the health care team thought that LST might need to be withdrawn. LST was defined as any therapy necessary to maintain life. Family was defined as the individuals who were participating in and experienc- ing the withdrawal of LST process. Most of the family mem- bers were, but did not need to be, related biologically.
Recruitment procedures
Families were referred to the researcher as she rounded in the ICUs. After obtaining a referral, the researcher reviewed the patient chart and spoke with the patient’s nurse to de- termine if the patient met the study criteria. Consent was ob- tained from the patient’s attending physician prior to ap- proaching the family and informed consent was obtained from each family member participating in the study. Insti- tutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to data collection.
Sequence for the investigation
The first family interviews commonly occurred in a con- ference room located close to the ICU and lasted 30–60 min- utes. All family members willing to participate were in- cluded in the interview. The first family interview was formal in that an interview guide was used.
Informal interviews followed the initial family interview. Informal interviews resembled conversations.21,22 Informal follow-up interviews and discussions usually lasted 5–30 minutes and were held with an individual family member, a dyad of family members, or with the entire family.
Interviews were held over a variety of time frames; most family members were interviewed and observed on multi- ple occasions over the days to weeks that they were involved in the withdrawal of LST process. The time frame varied as the withdrawal of LST process differed from family to fam- ily. Interviews were audio taped or field notes were taken.
Family, family/patient, and family/health care provider interactions were observed. Family and health care provider meetings were also observed and audio taped with permis- sion. Observations added another dimension of under- standing to the family experience. Observations also pro- vided data to reinforce interview data or to prompt the researcher to ask further questions for clarification.
Data analysis
Data analysis used an inductive approach and thematic analysis as described by van Manen.19,20 Atlas.ti computer software23 was used to help organize and manage data. The data were managed maintaining a family focus. Within and across case analyses were conducted.24 Within case analyses were conducted with the data from each family.
Across case analyses were conducted as data were obtained from subsequent families. The across family analysis of the data helped to identify aspects of the experience that were shared by all the families. Clusters or themes that emerged for each family were compared with themes that emerged from other families. The clusters were further analyzed and grouped into categories. Similarities that emerged between families provided information that identified what was common to the experi- ence. Data collection and data analysis continued until consis- tent categories emerged from the family level data.
Methodological rigor was established. The researcher had repeated contact with the families and thus had ample op- portunity to confirm interview data and clarify data with families. A sample of family members reviewed the final summary of the phenomenology of the family. A good phe- nomenological description is something that we can nod to, recognizing it as an experience that we have had.19,20
Consistency was determined by the use of multiple meth- ods for data collection. The family interview, multiple in- formal family interviews, observations of family interactions, family/patient interactions, family/health care provider in- teractions, and family meetings provided opportunities to confirm information, clarify confusing/conflicting informa- tion and seek further understanding. An audit trail was es- tablished and evaluated by an expert qualitative researcher.
Results
All physicians gave their consent for the researcher to re- cruit potential families into the study. One physician, when initially contacted, for consent to approach a specific family, thought it was too early. One week later he gave consent and the family agreed to participate in the study. Nineteen of the 21 families asked to participate in the study agreed to do so (response rate of 90%). Two families did not want to partic- ipate in the study. Decisions had already been made re- garding withdrawal of LST and 1 family was waiting for ex- tended family to arrive prior to withdrawal of LST.
Seventeen of the 19 families (90%) agreed with health care provider recommendations to withdraw LST and 16 patients died after LST was withdrawn (one patient died prior to withdrawal). Two families did not agree to recommenda- tions to withdraw LST (one patient died in the ICU and the other patient was still hospitalized when the study ended with plans to transfer to a long-term care facility). The pri- mary LST withdrawn included mechanical ventilation, va- sopressor therapy, or both. Demographic data for the 19 fam- ilies (56 family members) are summarized in Table 1.
The main categories that evolved from the data included: this happens to other families, time to understand the sever- ity of the illness or injury, time to see if health would be re- stored, riding a roller coaster, family readiness: willingness to consider LST as a possible option, one step at a time, fam- ily readiness: time to make a decision, the family will go on, and waiting for a miracle. The categories aided in under- standing that the lived experience for families participating in the process of withdrawal of LST occurred “in their own time.” Pseudonyms are used and identifying information al- tered to assure anonymity.
This happens to other families
Families were shocked that they were involved in the ex- perience. Life was going along and then it was abruptly in- terrupted. As Dot, one patient’s mother, stated, “Life can change so drastically from one day to the next.”
Families could not believe this was happening to them. A common sentiment was, “this happens to other families, not ours.” Families were distressed and distraught as they were faced with making end-of-life decisions for a family member who had become suddenly ill or injured. Jay’s family was in dis- belief of the suddenness, severity, and swiftness of Jay’s illness. How could Jay be so ill? He was so young. It almost didn’t seem real. As Jay’s wife Leslie said, “Who would have ever thought.”
Time to understand the severity of the illness or injury
Family members were told the seriousness of their family members’ illnesses or injuries, yet although family members
WITHDRAWAL OF LST 1117
heard the news they did not necessarily believe it. It took time for family members to understand. It was shocking for a family, for example, to see a family member who had made Thanksgiving dinner less than 1 week before now critically ill, fighting for her life.
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF PATIENT AND FAMILY MEMBER PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic characteristics n (%)
Patients 19 Age (years) 63 mean
68 median 20–82 range
Gender Female 15 (78.9%) Male 4 (21.1%)
Race Black, non-Hispanic origin 3 (15.8%) White, non-Hispanic origin 16 (84.2%)
Religion Protestant 6 (31.6%) Catholic 8 (42.1%) Muslim 1 (5.2%) Unknown 4 (21.1%)
Primary Diagnosis New cancer diagnosis 6 (31.6%)
(i.e., new diagnosis of liver cancer progressing to MODS)
Neurologic events 4 (21.1%) (i.e., cerebral aneurysm rupture leading to subarachnoid hemorrhage)
Trauma 3 (15.8%) (i.e., severe injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident)
Surgical complication 3 (15.8%) (i.e., development of MODS after gastric bypass surgery)
Pancreatitis 2 (10.5%) (i.e., development of sepsis after acute pancreatis)
Gastrointestinal bleeding 1 (5.2%) (i.e., development of ARDS after acute gastrointestinal bleeding)
Advance Directive No 9 (47.4%) Yes 10 (52.6%)
Family Members 56 Gender
Female 37 (66%) Male 19 (34%)
Race Black, non-Hispanic origin 5 (8.9%) White, non-Hispanic origin 50 (89.3%) Hispanic 1 (1.8%)
Relationship to Patient Adult child 32 (57.1%) Spouse 8 (14.3%) Sibling 5 (9.0%) Parent 4 (7.1%) In-law 4 (7.1%) Other 3 (5.4%)
MODS, multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome; ARDS, acute respi- ratory distress syndrome.
WIEGAND1118
Family members needed time to understand the patient’s prognosis, especially when health care providers determined that the patient would never return to his or her prehospi- talized condition. Families not only needed to know the prognosis, they needed time to understand the prognosis. It took time for family members to understand that their loved one was never going to be the same person again.
Families and individual family members within a family came to this realization at different times. For example Abby’s sister, Claire, realized that her sister was critically ill, however her other sister did not. As Claire stated, “She just doesn’t understand.”
Time to see if health would be restored
All patient situations involved uncertainty. Life-sustain- ing therapies were emergently initiated and then families and health care providers waited to determine how each pa- tient would respond. It was common for patients to have hours or days of stability followed by hours or days of in- stability.
The Johnson family became very upset when a resident was not optimistic the day after Mrs. Johnson’s surgery. Ac- cording to Mr. Johnson, “the resident said, ‘we got her through the operation but you do know the situation?’ Yeah, we know that she only has a little chance and all.” Mr. John- son and his family were upset as they felt the resident was not giving Mrs. Johnson a chance to improve.
Families hoped that ill or injured family members would beat the odds and respond to treatment. They waited and hoped that their family member would open his or her eyes, squeeze a hand, or wiggle a toe.
Riding a roller coaster
Numerous families described their experience as like rid- ing on a roller coaster. Family members went through the ups and downs of the experience together. Their family member might have a day or a period of time where it looked like things were going well, and then the next day things looked less hopeful. As Mr. Ragazo’s daughter described, “It’s just been up and down. He was supposed to get off the vent [ventilator], and then he’d run a fever and he’d get a setback.” Another patient’s son described his mother as hav- ing 4 bad days and then 1 good day: “everything goes up and down, up and down.”
The roller coaster experience had an effect on the family decision-making process. As a patient’s son said:
It’s one thing to make a decision if she was down here [he motioned with his arms down]; not doing well and stay down here, but now she has come up here [he mo- tioned with his arms a step up]; she has improved a lit- tle bit. So, we can’t really make a decision [about LST] when we see improvement.
Family readiness: willingness to consider LST as a possible option
Health care providers commonly had a family meeting during which key members of the health care team sat down with the patient’s family and discussed the possibility of withdrawal of LST. This meeting was very emotional and difficult for family members. The timing of family discus-
sions related to withdrawal of LST was very important. Most families were willing to discuss the possibility of limiting LST only after they understood and accepted their family member’s poor prognosis for recovery. If they were ap- proached too early, families felt that the health care team was prematurely giving up on their family member, questioned the health care provider’s credibility, became angry and lost trust in the health care providers.
During a family meeting Mr. Krieg’s daughter and son- in-law told the health care team that they were not willing to discuss withdrawal of LST as a possible outcome. Mr. Krieg’s son-in-law stated, “We understand that he (Mr. Krieg) is not going to survive, but we need time.”
Individual family member readiness preceded family readiness to discuss the possibility of withdrawal of LST. For example, Nina’s mother, Dot, was willingly to discuss with- drawal of LST as a possible outcome; however Nina’s father was initially not willing to discuss withdrawal of LST as a possible outcome.
One step at a time
Over time families knew the decision that was needed, but didn’t want to make it. Mr. Ragazo’s daughter said, “We didn’t want to make that difficult decision.” Mr. Ragazo’s daughter explained,
At this point he was in pre-organ shut down, and we all decided together, that we weren’t going to do any more dialysis or blood transfusions, but we didn’t want to just completely turn off the vent and give him mor- phine. . . . So we chose to keep him on the ventilator and make sure he’s comfortable. We did stop the medica- tions, like most of them, he was on a Lasix drip, one drip, and they were still sticking his finger, and we said, well you know, let’s let him be and not do that.
Two days later, the Ragazo family asked if the ventilator could be withdrawn, and the ventilator was withdrawn later that day.
Families found that taking one step at a time made the process more manageable. When considering life and death decisions, the majority of families made decisions to with- hold LST and decisions to withdraw LST followed at a later point in time. Most families were able to reach a decision to withhold LST, whereas decisions to withdraw LST required more time and contemplation. Several families said that they hoped that their family member would die on his or her own, thus they would not need to make a withdrawal of LST de- cision.
At a family meeting the Lyle family decided that car- diopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and aggressive resuscita- tive measures would not be initiated if Mrs. Lyle experienced a cardiac arrest. The Lyle family decided to withhold LST, but needed more time to talk as a family prior to making a decision related to withdrawal of LST. Two days after the family meeting, the Lyle family came to the hospital having decided that LST would be withdrawn that day.
Family readiness: Time to make a decision
The decision to withdraw LST was a tremendous decision. Family members described the decision to withdraw LST as
“the hardest decision,” “a horrific decision,” and a “cosmic decision.” Families needed to decide in their own time. Even- tually, all families were able to achieve consensus. Soon af- ter a discussion with the health care team some family mem- bers were able to decide quickly, whereas other family members needed more time. If families were pressured to make a decision the family became more protective, defen- sive, and insistent that all aggressive treatments continue.
For families it was very important that all of the family members were ready. Mr. Braitt wanted to wait a few more days before making a decision related to withdrawal of LST for his wife. As he described, we waited “just to satisfy the youngest daughter . . . I think the rest of us (he and his fam- ily) see it in a more realistic way, but she has more hope than we do that something good is going to happen . . . Techni- cally, I think it is my decision, but I sort of let everybody get in. . . . I want to keep everybody happy, because I know, on something like this, it’s a lot of stress on everybody.”
Individual family member readiness preceded family readiness. Family consensus was important. Mr. Johnson stated, “I know that I have really the say for it, but I want consensus.” Mr. Johnson talked with Mrs. Johnson’s sister, Mrs. Johnson’s mother, and all of Mr. and Mrs. Johnson’s adult children. All of the family agreed with the health care team’s recommendation to withdraw LST. Laura, Mrs. John- son’s oldest daughter said, “it’s been really hard. I had a sense last week what we needed to do, but we needed to wait for everybody to come along.” The decision to with- draw LST was a family decision and families needed time to come to consensus as a family.
The family will go on
The entire family was affected by the experience. Family members began to anticipate what the decision meant to the family and most family members began anticipatory griev- ing. Depending on the relationship, family members lost a spouse, mother, father, brother, sister, or child. Even while the family member was critically ill, the remaining family members began to adjust to changing roles, responsibilities, and relationships with each other.
Each family was faced with a changing future. Family members anticipated the loss of a future for and with their ill or injured family members. Life was suddenly changed and future possibilities were altered. Despite the loss of the ill or injured family member the family needed to go on.
Waiting for a miracle
Immediately after each patient’s illness or injury, family members were very hopeful for healing and recovery. All of the families were very hopeful that the outcome would be good. When the condition of each patient failed to improve or in some cases deteriorated, families often hoped for a mir- acle. Families hoped and many prayed that their family member would prove the health care team wrong and im- prove. Jason knew that his mother had three organs that had failed (her heart, lungs, and kidneys), yet despite this, he continued to hope for a miracle. He knew it might not hap- pen, but he was going to continue hoping for a miracle any- way.
Hope for a miracle continued for some families up until the very end. On the day that the Johnson family came in
expecting that LST would be withdrawn, Mr. Johnson ap- proached his wife’s nurse in the ICU hallway and told him, “We are here today to withdraw, unless a miracle hap- pened.” Even after LST was withdrawn, Mr. Johnson said, “I’m waiting for her to open her eyes and start talking.”
Discussion
The results of this study offer a unique understanding of what families experienced as they participated in the pro- cess of withdrawal of LST from a family member with an unexpected, life-threatening illness or injury. This study sup- ports findings of other researchers who have studied expe- riences of family members involved with the process of with- holding and withdrawing LST. The investigation confirmed the finding that decisions to withdraw LST commonly in- clude multiple family members.1,5,10,11 Families in this study tended to make the withdrawal of LST decision as a family through a consensus process. Tilden and colleagues5 also found that most families pulled together and made decisions related to withdrawal of LST as a group.
Families have described the decision to withdraw LST as the hardest thing they ever had to do.1,10,11 Families in this study echoed this sentiment as words such as “horrific” and “cosmic” were used to describe the decision. All families re- alized the intensity and the enormity of the decision.
Tilden and colleagues1(p436) noted that “eventually, a turn- ing point either in the patient’s condition or the family’s readiness arrived and was followed shortly thereafter by ei- ther the family or clinicians pressing toward a decision” (to withdraw LST). This study expands on the concept of fam- ily readiness and defines family readiness from two per- spectives, family readiness to have the discussion regarding withdrawal of LST as a possible option and family readiness to make a decision regarding withdrawal of LST. Families were willing to have a discussion regarding withdrawal of LST as a possible option when the patients’ family members understood the seriousness of the patients’ illnesses or in- juries and that the patients’ prognoses, although tenuous, were poor. It took time for all family members within a fam- ily to understand the patient’s condition and be willing to discuss withdrawal of LST as a possible option.
Decisions related to withdrawal of LST needed to be made by families in their own time and the timing varied for each family. Families were able to make decisions regarding with- drawal of LST when family members understood that pa- tients’ prognoses were poor and when all family members were ready. It took time for all family members within a fam- ily to understand the patient’s condition, be willing to dis- cuss withdrawal of LST as an option, and most importantly to come together as a family and agree to health care provider recommendations to withdraw LST.
Mayer and Kossoff13 found that although the majority of family members (79%) stated that the timing of the first dis- cussion to withdraw LST was just right, 17% thought it was premature. This study found that families, who were ap- proached too early, before they were ready, became more re- sistant to having discussions related to the possibility of withdrawal of LST and more insistent that aggressive treat- ments continue.
The current study offers new understanding of the family experience related to the process of withdrawal of LST. Fam-
WITHDRAWAL OF LST 1119
WIEGAND1120
ilies needed time to understand their family member’s con- dition. This was especially important as family members’ ill- nesses or injuries were sudden, unexpected and involved un- certainty. Families facing the sudden, unexpected illness or injury of a family member needed time to realize that life- sustaining interventions were not effective in restoring health and although their family member was alive, his or her life was drastically altered.
Families in this study described feeling like they were on a roller coaster. This was especially true as the condition of the patient often vacillated from stable at one point in time to unstable the next. This roller coaster effect was created by the patient and experienced by the family with families mov- ing up and down and reacting variably to the roller coaster. Being on a roller coaster affected the ability of families to make decisions about withdrawal of LST.
Decisions to withdraw LST often involved a two-step pro- cess with many families in this study making decisions to withhold LST prior to making decisions to withdraw LST. Thus, a decision was made to withhold LST such as aggres- sive resuscitation if it was needed and at a later date, a de- cision was made to withdraw LST. For example, a decision was made to withhold aggressive resuscitation and any new treatments (e.g., renal dialysis) should they be needed before decisions to withdraw LST. A stepwise decision making pro- cess for families in this study was helpful. Many families hoped that their family member would die naturally with- out them having to make an active decision to withdraw treatment.
The results of this study have important implications for clinical practice (Table 2). The results of this study also have important research implications. The concepts of individual and family readiness in relation to end-of-life decisions need further exploration. Assessment of family readiness may prove invaluable to facilitating the family decision-making process. Future research should continue to help health care providers to better understand what families experience as they participate in the process of withdrawal of LST.
Limitations
Since one researcher collected all data for the study re- searcher bias is a potential limitation. Safeguards were put in place in an attempt to prevent this, such as the use of mem- ber checks for families to give feedback about the data and the use of an audit trail so that an expert qualitative re- searcher could review all data. Also since one person ob- tained data, that one person could not be at the hospital 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Thus, the researcher did not directly observe all experiences that families told her about. Another limitation was that all family members participat- ing in the withdrawal of LST process were not able to par- ticipate in the study. Distance or ill health prohibited some members of a family from being physically present at the hospital; however they were involved in the process via tele- phone or daily updates. Since they were not present in the hospital they were not included in the interviews and ob- servations.
TABLE 2. POSSIBLE INTERVENTIONS TO USE WITH FAMILIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS OF WITHDRAWAL OF LST FROM A FAMILY MEMBER WHO EXPERIENCED AN UNEXPECTED, LIFE-THREATENING ILLNESS OR INJURY
Family experience Possible interventions
This happens to other families (shock and disbelief) Acknowledge family feelings Offer family support
Time to understand the severity of the illness or injury Keep family informed Give family time to understand the serious nature of the
illness or injury Time to see if health would be restored Keep family informed
Acknowledge the uncertainty of the illness or injury Riding a roller coaster Acknowledge the up and down (roller coaster) course
Offer family support Family readiness: willingness to consider LST as a Assess if families are ready to consider withdrawal of LST
possible option as an option Does the family understand and accept that the patient has
a poor prognosis? One step at a time Assist families with decisions to withhold LSTs prior to
decisions to withdraw LSTs Assist families with shared decision-making
Family readiness: time to make a decision Assess if families are ready to make a decision related to withdrawal of LST
Assist families as needed to achieve family consensus Assist families with shared decision-making
The family will go on Support the family throughout the process Incorporate additional services for families (palliative care
team, clergy, bereavement support, etc.) Waiting for a miracle Support families desire for hope and help the family by
balancing this with inevitable outcome Offer family support
LST, life-sustaining therapy.
WITHDRAWAL OF LST 1121
Conclusions
An acute, unexpected life-threatening illness or injury of a family member leaves a family vulnerable. Each family has a unique experience based on the context of the illness or in- jury, the family, and the experience. The family experience participating in the process of withdrawal of LST happened for families “in their own time.”
For families in this study their family members’ illnesses or injuries happened suddenly and unexpectedly. Families needed time to overcome the initial shock, comprehend the severity of their family member’s illness or injury, resolve the period of uncertainty, come together as a family to con- sider the possibility of withdrawal of LST, to eventually de- cide as a family to withdraw LST and to go on as a family. As one patient’s daughter described, “It was a terrible ex- perience but it was a good experience.” It is our responsi- bility as health care providers to support and help families through this process.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Janet Deatrick, R.N., Ph.D., F.A.A.N., associate professor at the University of Pennsyl- vania, for her support, guidance, and critique throughout the investigation. This work is dedicated to the families who shared their experiences.
Author Disclosure Statement
The author acknowledges funding support provided by pre- doctoral fellowship support from NIH/NINR (F31-NR07558), a Mentorship Research Grant from the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), and a Research Grant from the Southeastern Pennsylvania Chapter of the AACN.
References
1. Tilden VP, Tolle SW, Nelson CA, Thompson M, Eggman SC: Family decision-making in foregoing life-extending treat- ments. J Family Nurs 1999;5:426–442.
2. Danis M: Improving end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: What’s to be learned from outcomes research? New Horizons 1998;6:110–118.
3. Faber-Langendoen K: Process of forgoing life-sustaining treatment in a university hospital: An empirical study. Crit Care Med 1992;20:570–577.
4. Shannon S: Helping families prepare for and cope with death in the ICU. In: Curtis JR, Rubenfeld GD (eds): Man- aging Death in the Intensive Care Unit. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2001, pp. 165–182.
5. Tilden VP, Tolle SW, Garland, MJ, Nelson, CA: Decisions about life-sustaining treatment: Impact of physicians’ be- havior on the family. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:633–638.
6. Angus DC, Barnato AE, Linde-Zwirble WT, Weissfeld LA, Watson RS, Rickert T, Rubenfeld GD: Use of intensive care at the end of life in the United States: An epidemiologic study. Crit Care Med 2004;32:638–643.
7. Prendergast TJ, Luce JM: Increasing incidence of withhold- ing and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;155:15–20.
8. Heyland DK, Rocker GM, O’Callaghan CJ, Dodek PM, Cook DJ: Dying in the ICU: Perspective of family members. Chest 2003;124:392-397.
9. Swigart V, Lidz C, Butterworth V, Arnold R: Letting go: Family willingness to forgo life support. Heart Lung 1996;25: 483–494.
10. Jacob DA: Family members’ experiences with decision-mak- ing for incompetent patients in the ICU: A qualitative study. Am J Crit Care 1998;7:30–36.
11. Tilden VP, Tolle SW, Nelson CA, Fields J: Family decision- making to withdraw life-sustaining treatments from hospi- talized patients. Nurs Res 2001;50:105–115.
12. O’Callahan JG, Fink C, Pitts LH, Luce JM: Withholding and withdrawing of life support from patients with severe head injury. Crit Care Med 1995;23:1567–1575.
13. Mayer SA, Kossoff SB:Withdrawal of life support in the neu- rological intensive care unit. Neurology 1999;52:1602–609.
14. Roberts JC, Snyder R, Kjellstrand CM:Withdrawing life sup- port—The survivors. Acta Med Scand 1988;224:141–148.
15. Oliverio R, Fraulo B: SUPPORT revisited: The nurse clini- cian’s perspective. Holist Nurse Pract 1998;13:1–7.
16. Wiegand DL: Families and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. J Fam Nurs 2006;12:165–184.
17. Norton SA, Tilden VP, Tolle SW, Nelson CA, Eggmn ST: Life support withdrawal: Communication and conflict. Am J Crit Care 2003;12:548–555.
18. Wiegand DL: Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy after sudden, unexpected life-threatening illness or injury: Inter- actions between patients’ families, healthcare providers, and the healthcare system. Am J Crit Care 2006;15:178–187.
19. van Manen M: Practicing in phenomenological writing. Phe- nomenol Pedagogy 1984;2:36–69.
20. van Manen M: Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. London, Ontario: The State University of New York; 1990.
21. Kahn DL: How to conduct research. In: Cohen MZ, Kahn DL, Steeves RH (eds): Hermeneutic Phenomenological Research: A Practical Guide for Nurse Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2000.
22. Munhall PL: Phenomenology: A Method. In: Munhall PL (ed): Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2001.
23. Scolari Atlas.ti 4.1. Thousand Oakes, CAL: Sage Publications Software; 1997.
24. Ayres L, Kavanaugh K, Knafl KA: Within-case and across- case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qual Health Res 2003;13:871–883.
Address reprint requests to: Debra Wiegand, R.N., Ph.D.
University of Maryland School of Nursing 656 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
E-mail: debralyn@comcast.net