Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study

Purpose: In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most app...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Akkermans A.
Other Authors: Mahidol University
Format: Article
Published: 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82663
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Mahidol University
id th-mahidol.82663
record_format dspace
spelling th-mahidol.826632023-05-24T00:14:43Z Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study Akkermans A. Mahidol University Medicine Purpose: In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations. Method: A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families. Results: Seventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor’s line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together. Conclusion: This study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation. 2023-05-23T17:14:43Z 2023-05-23T17:14:43Z 2023-04-01 Article Intensive Care Medicine Vol.49 No.4 (2023) , 421-433 10.1007/s00134-023-07027-6 14321238 03424642 37004524 2-s2.0-85151434624 https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82663 SCOPUS
institution Mahidol University
building Mahidol University Library
continent Asia
country Thailand
Thailand
content_provider Mahidol University Library
collection Mahidol University Institutional Repository
topic Medicine
spellingShingle Medicine
Akkermans A.
Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study
description Purpose: In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations. Method: A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families. Results: Seventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor’s line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together. Conclusion: This study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation.
author2 Mahidol University
author_facet Mahidol University
Akkermans A.
format Article
author Akkermans A.
author_sort Akkermans A.
title Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study
title_short Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study
title_full Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study
title_fullStr Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study
title_full_unstemmed Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study
title_sort argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study
publishDate 2023
url https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82663
_version_ 1781415099843477504