IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0244919.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-readmission decisions in the intensive care unit: A qualitative study of physicians’ experience in a multicentre French study

Author

Listed:
  • Marine Jacquier
  • Nicolas Meunier-Beillard
  • Fiona Ecarnot
  • Audrey Large
  • François Aptel
  • Marie Labruyère
  • Auguste Dargent
  • Pascal Andreu
  • Jean-Baptiste Roudaut
  • Jean-Philippe Rigaud
  • Jean-Pierre Quenot

Abstract

Purpose: Deciding not to re-admit a patient to the intensive care unit (ICU) poses an ethical dilemma for ICU physicians. We aimed to describe and understand the attitudes and perceptions of ICU physicians regarding non-readmission of patients to the ICU. Materials and methods: Multicenter, qualitative study using semi-directed interviews between January and May 2019. All medical staff working full-time in the ICU of five participating centres (two academic and three general, non-academic hospitals) were invited to participate. Participants were asked to describe how they experienced non-readmission decisions in the ICU, and to expand on the manner in which the decision was made, but also on the traceability and timing of the decision. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using textual content analysis. Results: In total, 22 physicians participated. Interviews lasted on average 26±7 minutes. There were 14 men and 8 women, average age was 35±9 years, and average length of ICU experience was 7±5 years. The majority of respondents said that they regretted that the question of non-readmission was not addressed before the initial ICU admission. They acknowledged that the ICU stay did lead to more thorough contemplation of the overall goals of care. Multidisciplinary team meetings could help to anticipate the question of readmission within the patient’s care pathway. Participants reported that there is a culture of collegial decision-making in the ICU, although the involvement of patients, families and other healthcare professionals in this process is not systematic. The timing and traceability of non-readmission decisions are heterogeneous. Conclusions: Non-readmission decisions are a major issue that raises ethical questions surrounding the fact that there is no discussion of the patient’s goals of care in advance. Better anticipation, and better communication with the patients, families and other healthcare providers are suggested as areas that could be targeted for improvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Marine Jacquier & Nicolas Meunier-Beillard & Fiona Ecarnot & Audrey Large & François Aptel & Marie Labruyère & Auguste Dargent & Pascal Andreu & Jean-Baptiste Roudaut & Jean-Philippe Rigaud & Jean-Pie, 2021. "Non-readmission decisions in the intensive care unit: A qualitative study of physicians’ experience in a multicentre French study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-13, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244919
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244919
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244919&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0244919?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244919. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.