Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Challenges in end-of-life care in the ICU

Statement of the 5th International Consensus Conference in Critical Care: Brussels, Belgium, April 2003

  • ESICM Statement
  • Published:
Intensive Care Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The jurors identified numerous problems with end of life in the ICU including variability in practice, inadequate predictive models for death, elusive knowledge of patient preferences, poor communication between staff and surrogates, insufficient or absent training of health-care providers, the use of imprecise and insensitive terminology, and incomplete documentation in the medical records. The jury strongly recommends that research be conducted to improve end-of-life care. The jury advocates a “shared” approach to end-of-life decision-making involving the caregiver team and patient surrogates. Respect for patient autonomy and the intention to honour decisions to decline unwanted treatments should be conveyed to the family. The process is one of negotiation, and the outcome will be determined by the personalities and beliefs of the participants. Ultimately, it is the attending physician’s responsibility, as leader of the health-care team, to decide on the reasonableness of the planned action. In the event of conflict, the ICU team may agree to continue support for a predetermined time. Most conflicts can be resolved. If the conflict persists, however, an ethics consultation may be helpful. Nurses must be involved in the process. The patient must be assured of a pain-free death. The jury of the Consensus Conference subscribes to the moral and legal principles that prohibit administering treatments specifically designed to hasten death. The patient must be given sufficient analgesia to alleviate pain and distress; if such analgesia hastens death, this “double effect” should not detract from the primary aim to ensure comfort.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Esteban A, Gordo F, Solsona JP, et al (2001) Withdrawing and withholding life support in the intensive care unit: a Spanish prospective multi-center observational study. Intensive Care Med 27:1744–1749

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McLean RF, Tarshis J, Mazer CD, Szalai JP (2000) Death in two Canadian intensive care units: institutional difference and changes over time. Crit Care Med 28:100–103

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferrand E, Robert R, Ingrand P, Lemaire F; French LATAREA Group (2001) Withholding and withdrawal of life support in intensive care units in France: a prospective survey. Lancet 357:9–14

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Prendergast TJ, Claessens MT, Luce JM (1998) A national survey of end-of-life care for critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 158:1163–1167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vincent JL (1999) Forgoing life support in western European intensive care units: the results of an ethical questionnaire. Crit Care Med 27:1626–1633

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vincent JL (1990) European attitudes towards ethical problems in intensive care medicine: results of an ethical questionnaire. Intensive Care Med 16:256–264

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Winter B, Cohen S (1999) ABC of intensive care. Withdrawal of treatment. BMJ 319:306–308

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eidelman LA, Jakobson DJ, Pizov R, Geber D, Leibovitz L, Sprung CL (1998) Forgoing life-sustaining treatment in an Israeli ICU. Intensive Care Med 24:162–166

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Melltorp G, Nilstun T (1997) The difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Intensive Care Med 23:1264–1267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. [No authors listed] (1994) Predicting outcome in ICU patients. 2nd European Consensus Conference in Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 20:390–397

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hanson LC, Tulsky JA, Danis M (1997) Can clinical interventions change care at the end of life? Ann Intern Med 126:381–388

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson D, Wilson M, Cavanaugh B, Bryden C, et al (1998) Measuring the ability to meet family needs in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 26:266–271

    Google Scholar 

  13. SUPPORT Principal Investigators (1995) A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). JAMA 274:1591–1598

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Keenan SP, Mawdsley C, Plotkin D, Webster GK, Priestap F (2000) Withdrawal of life support: how the family feels, and why. J Palliat Care [Suppl] 16:S40–44

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hofmann JC, Wenger NS, Davis RB, Teno J, Connors AF Jr, Desbiens N, Lynn J, Phillips RS (1997) Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. Ann Intern Med 127:1–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nelson JE, Meier DE, Oei EJ, Nierman DM, Senzel RS, Manfredi PL, Davis SM, Morrison RS (2001) Self-reported symptom experience of critically ill cancer patients receiving intensive care. Crit Care Med 29:277–282

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cuthbertson SJ, Margetts MA, Streat SJ (2000) Bereavement follow-up after critical illness. Crit Care Med 28:1196–1201

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Knaus WA, Rauss A, Alperovitch A, Le Gall JR, Loirat P, Patois E, Marcus SE (1990) Do objective estimates of chances for survival influence decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment? The French Multicentric Group of ICU Research. Med Decis Making 10:163–171

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smedira NG, Evans BH, Grais LS, Cohen NH, Lo B, Cooke M, Schecter WP, Fink C, Epstein JE, May C (1990) Withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. N Engl J Med 322:309–315

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Robert R, Ferrand E; l’Association des Réanimateurs du Centre-Ouest (1996) Limitation et arrêt des thérapeutiques actives en réanimation: expérience de dix centres Rean. Urg 5:611–616

    Google Scholar 

  21. Prendergast TJ, Luce JM (1997) Increasing incidence of withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 155:15–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Keenan SP, Busche KD, Chen LM, McCarthy L, Inman KJ, Sibbald WJ (1997) A retrospective review of a large cohort of patients undergoing the process of withholding or withdrawal of life support. Crit Care Med 25:1324–1331

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pochard F, Azoulay E, Chevret S, et al (2001) French intensivists do not apply American recommendations regarding decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapy. Crit Care Med 29:1887–1892

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Linde-Zwirble W, Angus DC, Griffin M, Watson RS, Clermont G (2000) ICU care at the end-of-life in America: an epidemiological study. Crit Care Med 28:A34

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Bulow HH, Hovilehto S, Ledoux D, Lippert A, Maia P, Phelan D, Schobersberger W, Wennberg E, Woodcock T; Ethicus Study Group (2003) End of life practices in European intensive care units—the Ethicus study. JAMA 290:790–797

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Azoulay E, Chevret S, Leleu G, et al (2000) Half the families of intensive care unit patients experience inadequate communication with physicians. Crit Care Med 28:3044–3049

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Council of Europe (2000) Protection of the human rights and dignity of the terminally ill and the dying, Doc. 8888, 7 November 2000, Recommendation 1418 (1999), Reply from the Committee of Ministers, adopted at the 728th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, 30 October 2000

  28. Society of Critical Care Medicine (1997) Consensus statement of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Ethics Committee regarding futile and other possibly inadvisable treatments. Crit Care Med 25:887–891

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. American College of Physicians (1998) Ethics manual, 4th edn. Ann Intern Med 128:576–594

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. American Thoracic Society (1991) Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy. Ann Intern Med 115:478–485

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Borum ML, Lynn J, Zhong Z (2000) The effects of patient race on outcomes in seriously ill patients in SUPPORT: an overview of economic impact, medical intervention, and end-of-life decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:S194–S198

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Society of Critical Care Medicine (1992) Attitudes of critical care medicine professionals concerning forgoing life-sustaining treatments. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. Crit Care Med 20:320–326

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cuttini M, Nadai M, Kaminiski M, et al (2000) End-of-life decisions in neonatal intensive care: physicians’ self-reported practices in seven European countries. Lancet 355:2112–2118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rebagliato M, Cuttini M, Broggin L, et al (2000) Neonatal end-of-life decision making. Physicians’ attitudes and relationship with self-reported practices in 10 European countries. JAMA 284:2451–2459

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Blackhall LJ, Frank G, Murphy ST, et al (1999) Ethnicity and attitudes towards life sustaining technology. Soc Sci Med 48:1779–1789

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Matsumura S, Bito S, Kahn K, Fukuhara S, Kagawa-Singer M, Wenger N (2002) Acculturation of attitudes toward end-of-life care: a cross-cultural survey of Japanese Americans and Japanese. J Gen Intern Med 17:531–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Field MJ, Cassell CK (1997) Approaching death: improving care at the end-of-life. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kollef MH, Ward S (1999) The influence of access to a private attending physician on the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 27:2125–2132

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rapoport J, Gehlbach S, Lemeshow S, Teres D (1992) Resource utilization among in the intensive care unit: managed care versus traditional insurance. Arch Intern Med 152:2207–2212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bach PB, Carson SS, Leff A (1998) Outcomes and resource utilization for patients with prolonged critical illness managed by university-based or community-based subspecialists. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 158:1410–1415

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schneiderman LJ, Gilmer T, Teetzel HD (2000) Impact of ethics consultations in the intensive care setting: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med 28:3920–3924

    Google Scholar 

  42. Asch DA, Christakis NA (1996) Why do physicians prefer to withdraw some forms of life support over others? Intrinsic attributes of life-sustaining treatments are associated with physicians’ preferences. Med Care 34:103–111

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Danis M, Mutran E, Garrett JM, Stearns SC, Slifkin RT, Hanson L, Williams JF, Churchill LR (1996) A prospective study of the impact of patient preferences on life-sustaining treatment and hospital cost. Crit Care Med 24:1811–1817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schneiderman LJ, Pearlman RA, Kaplan RM, et al (1992) Relationship of general advance directive instructions to specific life-sustaining treatment preferences in patients with serious illness. Arch Intern Med 152:2114–2122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fischer GS, Tulsky JA, Rose MR, Siminoff LA, Arnold RM (1998) Patient knowledge and physician predictions of treatment preferences after discussion of advance directives. J Gen Intern Med 13:447–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Seckler AB, Meier DE, Mulvihill M, Cammer Paris BE (1991) Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions? Ann Intern Med 115:92–98

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pochard F, Azoulay E, Chevret S, et al (2001) Symptoms of anxiety and depression in family members of intensive care unit patients: ethical hypothesis regarding decision-making capacity. Crit Care Med 29:1893–1897

    Google Scholar 

  48. Jacob D (1998) Family members’ experiences with decision making for incompetent patients in the ICU: a qualitative study. Am J Crit Care 7:30–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kennard M, Speroff T, Puopolo A, Follen M, Mallatratt L, Phillips R, Desbiens N, Califf R, Connors A (1996) Participation of nurses in decision making for seriously ill adults. Clin Nurs Res 5:199–219

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Eliasson A, Howard R, Torrington K, Dillard T, Phillips Y (1997) Do-not-resuscitate decisions in the medical ICU: comparing physician and nurse opinions. Chest 111:1106–1111

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Abbott KH, Sago J, Breen C, Abernethy A, Tulsky J (2001) Families looking back: one year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support. Crit Care Med 29:197–201

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Singer PA, Choudhry S, Armstrong J (1993) Public opinion regarding consent to treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc 41:112–116

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Genuis SJ, Genuis SK, Chang WC (1994) Public attitudes toward the right to die. Can Med Assoc J 150:701–708

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Roupie E, Santin A, Boulme R, et al (2000) Patients’ preferences concerning medical information and surrogacy: results of a prospective study in a French emergency department. Intensive Care Med 26:52–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sjokvist P, Nilstun T, Svantesson M, Berggren L (1999) Withdrawal of life support—who should decide? Differences in attitudes among the general public, nurses and physicians. Intensive Care Med 25:949–954

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Lilly CM, De Meo DL, Sonna LA, et al (2000) An intensive communication intervention for the critically ill. Am J Med 109:469–475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Tulsky JA, Chesney MA, Lo B (1995) How do medical residents discuss resuscitation with patients? J Gen Intern Med 10:436–442

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Rocker GM, Dodek PM, Kutsogiannis DJ, Peters S, Tranmer JE, O’Callaghan CJ (2003) Decision making in the ICU: perspectives of the substitute decision maker. Intensive Care Med 29:75–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Breen CM, Abernethy AP, Abbott KH, Tulsky JA (2001) Conflict associated with decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment in intensive care units. J Gen Intern Med 16:283–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Goold SD, Williams G, Arnold RM (2000) Conflicts regarding decisions to limit treatment: a differential diagnosis. JAMA 283:909–914

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Truog RD, Cist AF, Brackett SE, et al (2001) Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: the Ethics Committee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 29:2332–2348

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Azoulay E, Cattaneo I, Ferrand E, Pochard F (2001) L’Information au patient de Réanimation et à ses proches: le point de vue de la SRLF. Réanimation 10:571–581

    Google Scholar 

  63. Rocker G, Dunbar S (2000) Withholding or withdrawal of life support: the Canadian Critical Care Society position paper. J Palliat Care 16:S53–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Sulmasy DP, Pellegrino ED (1999) The rule of double effect: clearing up the double talk. Arch Intern Med 159:545–550

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Quill TE, Dresser R, Brock DW (1997) The rule of double effect—a critique of its role in end-of-life decision making. N Engl J Med 337:1768–1771

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Molter NC (1979) Needs of relatives of critically ill patients: a descriptive study. Heart Lung 8:332–339

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Hickey M (1990) What are the needs of families of critically ill patients? A review of the literature since 1976. Heart Lung 19:401–415

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Cook D, Rocker G, Marshall J, et al (2003) Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in anticipation of death in the intensive care unit. New Engl J Med 349:1123–1132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Stevens L, Cook D, Guyatt G, Griffith L, Walter S, McMullin J (2002) Education, ethics, and end-of-life decisions in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 30:290–296

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Curtis JR, Engelberg RA, Wenrich MD, et al (2002) Studying communication about end-of-life care during the ICU family conference: development of a framework. J Crit Care 17:147–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Fallowfield L, Jenkins V, Farewell V, Saul J, Duffy A, Eves R (2002) Efficacy of a Cancer Research UK communication skills training model for oncologists: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 359:650–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Levy M (2001) Making a personal relationship with Death. In: Curtis JR, Rubenfeld GD (eds) Managing death in the intensive care unit: the transition from cure to comfort. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 31–36

  73. DuBoulay S, Saunders C (1984) The founder of the modern hospice movement. Hodder and Stoughton, London

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Carlet.

Additional information

Sponsored by the American Thoracic (ATS), the European Respiratory Society (ERS), the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (SRLF).

Jurors and co-authors: Massimo Antonelli (Rome, Italy), Joan Cassell (St. Louis, USA), Peter Cox (Toronto, Canada), Nicholas Hill (Boston, USA), Charles Hinds (London, UK), Jorge Pimentel (Coimbra, Portugal), Konrad Reinhart (Jena, Germany), and B. Taylor Thompson (Boston, USA).

Consensus Conference organisation: Scientific advisors: François Lemaire (Créteil, France), and Gordon Rubenfeld (Seattle, USA).

International Consensus Conference Committee. ATS: Brian Kavanagh (Toronto, Canada), B. Taylor Thompson (Boston, USA); ERS: Mark Elliott (Leeds, UK), Thomas Similowski (Paris, France); ESICM: Julian Bion (Birmingham, UK), Rui Moreno (Lisbon, Portugal); SCCM: Mitchell Levy (Providence, USA), Ann Thompson (Pittsburgh, USA); SRLF: Didier Dreyfuss (Colombes, France), Jean Chastre (Paris, France).

Scientific experts: Elie Azoulay (Paris, France), Amber Barnato (Pittsburgh, USA), Jean-Michel Boles (Brest, France), Robert A. Burt (Connecticut, USA), Jean-Claude Chevrolet (Geneva, Switzerland), Deborah Cook (Hamilton, Canada), Randall Curtis (Seattle, USA), Andres Esteban (Madrid, Spain), Edouard Ferrand (Créteil, France), Jesse Hall (Chicago, USA), Marjorie Kagawa-Singer (Los Angeles, USA), David Kuhl (Vancouver, Canada), Paul Lanken (Philadelphia, USA), François Lemaire (Créteil, France), Mitchell Levy (Providence, USA), John Luce (San Francisco, USA), Piotr Mierzewski (Strasbourg, France), Pamela Mitchell (Seattle, USA), Rui Moreno (Lisbon, Portugal), Astrid Norberg (Umea, Sweden), Thomas J. Prendergast (Lebanon, USA), Kathleen Puntillo (San Francisco, USA), Gordon Rubenfeld (Seattle, USA), Larry Schneiderman (San Diego, USA), Gerard Silvestri (Charleston, USA), Peter Sjökvist (Stockholm, Sweden), Charles Sprung (Jerusalem, Israel), Daniel Sulmasy (New York, USA), Robert Truog (Boston, USA), Jean-Louis Vincent (Brussels, Belgium)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carlet, J., Thijs, L.G., Antonelli, M. et al. Challenges in end-of-life care in the ICU. Intensive Care Med 30, 770–784 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2241-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2241-5

Keywords

Navigation