Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions

A Policy Statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee

Alexander A. Kon, Eric K. Shepard, Nneka O. Sederstrom, Sandra M. Swoboda, Mary Faith Marshall, Barbara Birriel, Fred Rincon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. Design: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. Measurements and Main Results: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. Conclusions: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1769-1774
Number of pages6
JournalCritical care medicine
Volume44
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

Ethics Committees
Psychological Stress
Nervous System
Therapeutics
Patient Care Planning
Pain
Empirical Research
Aptitude
Critical Care
Intensive Care Units
Consensus
Organizations

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Kon, Alexander A. ; Shepard, Eric K. ; Sederstrom, Nneka O. ; Swoboda, Sandra M. ; Marshall, Mary Faith ; Birriel, Barbara ; Rincon, Fred. / Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions : A Policy Statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. In: Critical care medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 44, No. 9. pp. 1769-1774.
@article{b29ced058ec74bccab89e85ff261f9ab,
title = "Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: A Policy Statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee",
abstract = "Objectives: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. Design: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. Measurements and Main Results: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. Conclusions: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.",
author = "Kon, {Alexander A.} and Shepard, {Eric K.} and Sederstrom, {Nneka O.} and Swoboda, {Sandra M.} and Marshall, {Mary Faith} and Barbara Birriel and Fred Rincon",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/CCM.0000000000001965",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "1769--1774",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions : A Policy Statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. / Kon, Alexander A.; Shepard, Eric K.; Sederstrom, Nneka O.; Swoboda, Sandra M.; Marshall, Mary Faith; Birriel, Barbara; Rincon, Fred.

In: Critical care medicine, Vol. 44, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 1769-1774.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions

T2 - A Policy Statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee

AU - Kon, Alexander A.

AU - Shepard, Eric K.

AU - Sederstrom, Nneka O.

AU - Swoboda, Sandra M.

AU - Marshall, Mary Faith

AU - Birriel, Barbara

AU - Rincon, Fred

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Objectives: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. Design: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. Measurements and Main Results: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. Conclusions: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.

AB - Objectives: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. Design: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. Measurements and Main Results: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. Conclusions: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84982113150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84982113150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001965

DO - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001965

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 1769

EP - 1774

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 9

ER -