Cited by 25Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics in medical practice

Family surrogate decision-making in chronic critical illness: A qualitative analysis.

Open access
Moss, Karen O., Douglas, Sara L., Baum, Eric, Daly, Barbara·2019·Critical Care Nurse

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Caring for an adult with chronic critical illness is a difficult undertaking. Family surrogates are tasked with decision-making on behalf of their loved one, particularly during acute-on-chronic illness episodes. Critical care nurses are well positioned and well qualified to facilitate this process. OBJECTIVES: To explore family surrogate decision-making for people with chronic critical illness. METHODS: In this qualitative study, interviews were conducted with family surrogates (n = 7) as part of a larger descriptive, longitudinal study (N = 264). Content analyses were guided by Miles and colleagues' methods of data analysis. RESULTS: Family surrogates serving as decision makers for a spouse or another adult loved one were mostly female. Although decision-making was often described as "frustrating," most surrogates reported that they were "comfortable" with this role. Major decision-making themes were "communication as key in decision-making," "impact of past experiences," and "difficulties and coping." Advice from family and friends, health care providers (such as nurses), and faith or spirituality were significant resources for coping with decision-making challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Results support recent recommendations of the National Academy of Medicine that endorsed shared decision-making. Data also support development of more effective team communication and decision support strategies, particularly addressing consistency and continuity. Critical care nurses can use their expertise to positively influence these outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4037/ccn2019176

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The updated literature search identified no new RCTs but two meta-analyses comparing continuous and intermittent renal replacement therapies.

    “Our updated literature search identified no new RCTs but two meta-analysis comparing continuous and intermittent renal replacement therapies (503, 504).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [504]

    The paper’s Abstract (Methods; page unavailable) describes interviews with family surrogates, and its Discussion addresses decision-making in chronic critical illness. Searches for renal replacement therapies, RCTs, and the claimed updated literature search found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A small study of ICU relatives found that anxiety and depression rates were lower in those who preferred an active role or shared responsibility in decision-making compared to those who preferred a passive role.

    “A small study of ICU relatives found that anxiety and depression rates were lower in those who preferred an active role or shared responsibility in decision-making compared to those who preferred a passive role (591).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [591]

    The Discussion mentions anxiety and depression among ICU family members but does not compare rates by preferred decision-making role. It instead proposes future research comparing caregivers involved in decisions with those who are not. Searches for active, shared, and passive roles found no such comparison in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Dying in America: Improving quality and honoring individual preferences near the end of life. 2014 http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2014/Dying-In-America-Improving- 25927121

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moss, K. O., Douglas, S. L., Baum, E., & Daly, B.
Affiliations
University Hospitals of Cleveland (US)
Venue
Critical Care Nurse
Published
2019-06
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
e18-e26
ISSN
  • 0279-5442 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-8250
OpenAlex
W2947429152
Cited by
25
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care Nurse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (TL1TR002549)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR013322, T32NR014213)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
Keywords
family surrogate decision-making, chronic critical illness, shared decision-making, family caregivers, faith and spirituality, critical care nursing, team communication, continuity of care
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Chronic Disease, Critical Care, Decision Making, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Professional-Family Relations, United States, Critical Illness, Nurse's Role, Interdisciplinary Communication, Qualitative Research, Critical Care Nursing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review