Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,761 studies31 sourcesUpdated 29 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

Discussing Future Treatment and Care in the ICU: Perspectives From Patients

  • Mette A. Smith1
  • Ann Dorthe Zwisler2
  • Anne Nissen3
  • Jens Michelsen3
  • Hanne Tanghus Olsen3
  • Sine Wichmann4,5
  • Peter M. Hansen6,7,8
  • Louise H. Walther6,7
  • Sebastian Le Greves6
  • Bo Westergaard9
  • Hanne I. Jensen1,8
  • Kristin B. Nystrup2
9 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Kolding Hospital, a Part of Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark Kolding Denmark
  2. 2Palliative Care Unit Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark
  3. 3Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark
  4. 4Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Copenhagen University Hospital, North Zealand Hilleroed Denmark
  5. 5Department of Clinical Medicine University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark
  6. 6Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Odense University Hospital Svendborg Denmark
  7. 7The Prehospital Research Unit Prehospital South Odense Denmark
  8. 8Department of Regional Health Research University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark
  9. 9Department of Intensive Care Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Introduction: Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is usually predicated on curative treatment, but continuing all available treatment options may not always be beneficial for the patient or in line with their wishes. However, patients admitted to the ICU are often assessed as incapable of making decisions regarding their care; hence conversations about wishes for treatment are postponed. This study aimed to investigate the experiences of patients who participated in a conversation concerning treatment and care following ICU discharge based on the Danish version of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form.

Method: Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted with patients who had a conversation about future treatment and care with an intensivist using the ReSPECT form during an ICU admission between November 2024 and July 2025. Relatives who participated in the conversation and were present during the interviews were asked to elaborate on their experiences of the conversation's timing and how they felt about participating in the conversation. Data was analysed using content analysis.

Results: Nineteen patients were included in the study, of whom 15 patients (83%) participated in a telephone interview. Two themes were identified: Timing of the conversation and Clarifying goals of care and options. Based on these, four sub‐themes were identified, two for each theme: Too soon, but not much later; Wishes in accordance; Hard, but necessary and Communicating in an understandable manner. Most patients were satisfied with having had a conversation about future treatment and care. Patients found the conversation relevant and necessary. The intensivists were praised for their communication skills and their ability to know and explain recommendations for future treatment and care. However, most patients believed that the conversation was conducted too soon after recovering from intensive care. They would have preferred to have had the conversation later during their admission.

Conclusions: Most participating ICU patients found a conversation about future treatment and care relevant but preferred it to be held after ICU discharge. Future research should investigate the benefits of incorporating intensivists in these conversations in general wards.

Editorial Comment: In this prospective study, former ICU patients were interviewed and asked about their experiences and opinions regarding a structured ReSPECT discussion that had been conducted in the end of their ICU stay. The goal of that interview was advance care planning, involving the patients and their family members. This study reports a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted at least 4 weeks later. Two main themes and four subthemes were identified. Almost all patients remembered having had the discussion, but the content was less clearly remembered. ICU physicians’ communication skills were appreciated. The study assesses a function of our daily work from patient and family perspective, and discusses important issues such as optimal timing of the advance care planning.

Related

  1. Post-Treatment Surveillance to Detect Recurrent Disease in Esophagogastric Cancer: A Review of Current Practice and Future Perspectives
    Nicola B. Raftery, Mark P. Ward, Claire L. Donohoe +2
    Journal of clinical medicinePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  2. The Evolution of Neoadjuvant Treatment for Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Past Achievements, Current Standards, and Future Perspectives
    Naoto Ujiie, Yusuke Taniyama, Chiaki Sato +5
    CancersPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Surgery & anaesthesiaCrossref
  3. Digital twin technology in cardiovascular care: future perspectives for nursing practice, patient management, and clinical decision-making
    Naseema Shafqat, Veena Verma, Saman Naseema
    Frontiers in Cardiovascular MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthCrossref
  4. Participant perspectives on a person-centred care model for mobile individuals in HIV care from the SEARCH Dynamic Choice Treatment trial in rural Kenya and Uganda
    Jason Johnson-Peretz, James Ayieko, Lawrence Owino +14
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textImmunologyMicrobiologyPLOS
  5. Urticaria Voices: Perspectives of Dermatologists and Allergists Regarding Chronic Urticaria Care and Its Treatment in China
    Zuotao Zhao, Yi Li, Tara Raftery +6
    Dermatology and TherapyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Full textGeneral medicinePMCEurope PMCDOAJ

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{smith2026discussing,
  title = {{Discussing Future Treatment and Care in the ICU: Perspectives From Patients}},
  author = {Mette A. Smith and Ann Dorthe Zwisler and Anne Nissen and Jens Michelsen and Hanne Tanghus Olsen and Sine Wichmann and Peter M. Hansen and Louise H. Walther and Sebastian Le Greves and Bo Westergaard and Hanne I. Jensen and Kristin B. Nystrup},
  journal = {Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1111/aas.70381},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70381},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Discussing Future Treatment and Care in the ICU: Perspectives From Patients
AU  - Mette A. Smith
AU  - Ann Dorthe Zwisler
AU  - Anne Nissen
AU  - Jens Michelsen
AU  - Hanne Tanghus Olsen
AU  - Sine Wichmann
AU  - Peter M. Hansen
AU  - Louise H. Walther
AU  - Sebastian Le Greves
AU  - Bo Westergaard
AU  - Hanne I. Jensen
AU  - Kristin B. Nystrup
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/27
JO  - Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
DO  - 10.1111/aas.70381
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70381
AB  - Introduction: Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is usually predicated on curative treatment, but continuing all available treatment options may not always be beneficial for the patient or in line with their wishes. However, patients admitted to the ICU are often assessed as incapable of making decisions regarding their care; hence conversations about wishes for treatment are postponed. This study aimed to investigate the experiences of patients who participated in a conversation concerning treatment and care following ICU discharge based on the Danish version of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form.  Method: Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted with patients who had a conversation about future treatment and care with an intensivist using the ReSPECT form during an ICU admission between November 2024 and July 2025. Relatives who participated in the conversation and were present during the interviews were asked to elaborate on their experiences of the conversation's timing and how they felt about participating in the conversation. Data was analysed using content analysis.  Results: Nineteen patients were included in the study, of whom 15 patients (83%) participated in a telephone interview. Two themes were identified: Timing of the conversation and Clarifying goals of care and options. Based on these, four sub‐themes were identified, two for each theme: Too soon, but not much later; Wishes in accordance; Hard, but necessary and Communicating in an understandable manner. Most patients were satisfied with having had a conversation about future treatment and care. Patients found the conversation relevant and necessary. The intensivists were praised for their communication skills and their ability to know and explain recommendations for future treatment and care. However, most patients believed that the conversation was conducted too soon after recovering from intensive care. They would have preferred to have had the conversation later during their admission.  Conclusions: Most participating ICU patients found a conversation about future treatment and care relevant but preferred it to be held after ICU discharge. Future research should investigate the benefits of incorporating intensivists in these conversations in general wards.  Editorial Comment: In this prospective study, former ICU patients were interviewed and asked about their experiences and opinions regarding a structured ReSPECT discussion that had been conducted in the end of their ICU stay. The goal of that interview was advance care planning, involving the patients and their family members. This study reports a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted at least 4 weeks later. Two main themes and four subthemes were identified. Almost all patients remembered having had the discussion, but the content was less clearly remembered. ICU physicians’ communication skills were appreciated. The study assesses a function of our daily work from patient and family perspective, and discusses important issues such as optimal timing of the advance care planning.
SN  - 0001-5172
SN  - 1399-6576
ER  -