Skip to main content
PMC home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1999 Nov 2;161(9):1109–1113.

Life support in the intensive care unit: a qualitative investigation of technological purposes

D J Cook 1, M Giacomini 1, N Johnson 1, D Willms 1
PMCID: PMC1230731  PMID: 10569086

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ability of many intensive care unit (ICU) technologies to prolong life has led to an outcomes-oriented approach to technology assessment, focusing on morbidity and mortality as clinically important end points. With advanced life support, however, the therapeutic goals sometimes shift from extending life to allowing life to end. The objective of this study was to understand the purposes for which advanced life support is withheld, provided, continued or withdrawn in the ICU. METHODS: In a 15-bed ICU in a university-affiliated hospital, the authors observed 25 rounds and 11 family meetings in which withdrawal or withholding of advanced life support was addressed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 7 intensivists, 5 consultants, 9 ICU nurses, the ICU nutritionist, the hospital ethicist and 3 pastoral services representatives, to discuss patients about whom life support decisions were made and to discuss life-support practices in general. Interview transcripts and field notes were analysed inductively to identify and corroborate emerging themes; data were coded following modified grounded theory techniques. Triangulation methods included corroboration among multiple sources of data, multidisciplinary team consensus, sharing of results with participants and theory triangulation. RESULTS: Although life-support technologies are traditionally deployed to treat morbidity and delay mortality in ICU patients, they are also used to orchestrate dying. Advanced life support can be withheld or withdrawn to help determine prognosis. The tempo of withdrawal influences the method and timing of death. Decisions to withhold, provide, continue or withdraw life support are socially negotiated to synchronize understanding and expectations among family members and clinicians. In discussions, one discrete life support technology is sometimes used as an archetype for the more general concept of technology. At other times, life-support technologies are discussed collectively to clarify the pursuit of appropriate goals of care. CONCLUSIONS: The orchestration of death involves process-oriented as well as outcome-oriented uses of technology. These uses should be considered in the assessment of life-support technologies and directives for their appropriate use in the ICU.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (202.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Asch D. A., Christakis N. A. 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. 1996 Feb;34(2):103–111. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199602000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cook D. J., Guyatt G. H., Jaeschke R., Reeve J., Spanier A., King D., Molloy D. W., Willan A., Streiner D. L. Determinants in Canadian health care workers of the decision to withdraw life support from the critically ill. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. JAMA. 1995 Mar 1;273(9):703–708. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cook D. J., Sibbald W. J., Vincent J. L., Cerra F. B. Evidence based critical care medicine; what is it and what can it do for us? Evidence Based Medicine in Critical Care Group. Crit Care Med. 1996 Feb;24(2):334–337. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199602000-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Emanuel E. J., Emanuel L. L. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992 Apr 22;267(16):2221–2226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Faber-Langendoen K. A multi-institutional study of care given to patients dying in hospitals. Ethical and practice implications. Arch Intern Med. 1996 Oct 14;156(18):2130–2136. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Faber-Langendoen K. The clinical management of dying patients receiving mechanical ventilation. A survey of physician practice. Chest. 1994 Sep;106(3):880–888. doi: 10.1378/chest.106.3.880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Giacomini M. K. The which-hunt: assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999 Aug;24(4):715–758. doi: 10.1215/03616878-24-4-715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Good M. J. Cultural studies of biomedicine: an agenda for research. Soc Sci Med. 1995 Aug;41(4):461–473. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00008-u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Keenan S. P., Busche K. D., Chen L. M., Esmail R., Inman K. J., Sibbald W. J. Withdrawal and withholding of life support in the intensive care unit: a comparison of teaching and community hospitals. The Southwestern Ontario Critical Care Research Network. Crit Care Med. 1998 Feb;26(2):245–251. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199802000-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Keenan S. P., Busche K. D., Chen L. M., McCarthy L., Inman K. J., Sibbald W. J. A retrospective review of a large cohort of patients undergoing the process of withholding or withdrawal of life support. Crit Care Med. 1997 Aug;25(8):1324–1331. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199708000-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rosenfield P. L. The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med. 1992 Dec;35(11):1343–1357. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90038-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sibbald W. J., Inman K. J. Problems in assessing the technology of critical care medicine. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992 Summer;8(3):419–443. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300013726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Singer P. A., Martin D. K., Kelner M. Quality end-of-life care: patients' perspectives. JAMA. 1999 Jan 13;281(2):163–168. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.2.163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Snider G. L. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy. All systems are not yet "go". Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Feb;151(2 Pt 1):279–281. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.151.2.7842179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ventres W., Nichter M., Reed R., Frankel R. Limitation of medical care: an ethnographic analysis. J Clin Ethics. 1993 Summer;4(2):134–145. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Walter S. D., Cook D. J., Guyatt G. H., Spanier A., Jaeschke R., Todd T. R., Streiner D. L. Confidence in life-support decisions in the intensive care unit: a survey of healthcare workers. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Crit Care Med. 1998 Jan;26(1):44–49. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199801000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wood G. G., Martin E. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy in a Canadian intensive care unit. Can J Anaesth. 1995 Mar;42(3):186–191. doi: 10.1007/BF03010673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES