"Just because we can doesn't mean we should"

Views of nurses on deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Daniel B. Kramer, Abigale L. Ottenberg, Samantha Gerhardson, Luke A. Mueller, Sharon R. Kaufman, Barbara A. Koenig, Paul Mueller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to identify nurses' concerns about the clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of deactivating cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Methods: We used focus groups to discuss decision making in CIED management. Results: Fourteen nurses described the informed consent process as overly focused on procedures, with inadequate coverage of living with a device (e.g., infection risks and device shocks). Elderly patients were especially vulnerable to physician or family pressure about CIED implantation. Nurses believed that initial advance care planning discussions were infrequent and rarely revisited when health status changed. Many patients did not know that CIEDs could be deactivated; it was often addressed reactively (i.e., after multiple shocks) or when patients became too ill to participate in decision making. Nurses generally were supportive of CIED deactivation when it was requested by a well-informed patient. However, nurses distinguished between withholding versus withdrawing treatment (i.e., turning off CIEDs vs. declining implantation). Although most patients viewed their device as lifesaving, others perceived them as a "ticking time bomb." Conclusions: Nurses identified concerns about CIED decision making from implantation through end-of-life care and device deactivation and suggested avenues for improving patient care including early and regular advance care planning.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)243-252
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
Volume32
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2011

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Nurses
Equipment and Supplies
Advance Care Planning
Decision Making
Shock
Withholding Treatment
Terminal Care
Family Physicians
Jurisprudence
Focus Groups
Informed Consent
Health Status
Patient Care
Pressure

Keywords

  • Device deactivation
  • Ethics
  • Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
  • Nursing
  • Pacemakers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

"Just because we can doesn't mean we should" : Views of nurses on deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. / Kramer, Daniel B.; Ottenberg, Abigale L.; Gerhardson, Samantha; Mueller, Luke A.; Kaufman, Sharon R.; Koenig, Barbara A.; Mueller, Paul.

In: Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, Vol. 32, No. 3, 01.12.2011, p. 243-252.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kramer, Daniel B. ; Ottenberg, Abigale L. ; Gerhardson, Samantha ; Mueller, Luke A. ; Kaufman, Sharon R. ; Koenig, Barbara A. ; Mueller, Paul. / "Just because we can doesn't mean we should" : Views of nurses on deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. In: Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2011 ; Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 243-252.
@article{d27d5388887f4242aa7a8542a97dbf44,
title = "{"}Just because we can doesn't mean we should{"}: Views of nurses on deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators",
abstract = "Purpose: This study aims to identify nurses' concerns about the clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of deactivating cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Methods: We used focus groups to discuss decision making in CIED management. Results: Fourteen nurses described the informed consent process as overly focused on procedures, with inadequate coverage of living with a device (e.g., infection risks and device shocks). Elderly patients were especially vulnerable to physician or family pressure about CIED implantation. Nurses believed that initial advance care planning discussions were infrequent and rarely revisited when health status changed. Many patients did not know that CIEDs could be deactivated; it was often addressed reactively (i.e., after multiple shocks) or when patients became too ill to participate in decision making. Nurses generally were supportive of CIED deactivation when it was requested by a well-informed patient. However, nurses distinguished between withholding versus withdrawing treatment (i.e., turning off CIEDs vs. declining implantation). Although most patients viewed their device as lifesaving, others perceived them as a {"}ticking time bomb.{"} Conclusions: Nurses identified concerns about CIED decision making from implantation through end-of-life care and device deactivation and suggested avenues for improving patient care including early and regular advance care planning.",
keywords = "Device deactivation, Ethics, Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, Nursing, Pacemakers",
author = "Kramer, {Daniel B.} and Ottenberg, {Abigale L.} and Samantha Gerhardson and Mueller, {Luke A.} and Kaufman, {Sharon R.} and Koenig, {Barbara A.} and Paul Mueller",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10840-011-9596-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "243--252",
journal = "Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology",
issn = "1383-875X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - "Just because we can doesn't mean we should"

T2 - Views of nurses on deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

AU - Kramer, Daniel B.

AU - Ottenberg, Abigale L.

AU - Gerhardson, Samantha

AU - Mueller, Luke A.

AU - Kaufman, Sharon R.

AU - Koenig, Barbara A.

AU - Mueller, Paul

PY - 2011/12/1

Y1 - 2011/12/1

N2 - Purpose: This study aims to identify nurses' concerns about the clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of deactivating cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Methods: We used focus groups to discuss decision making in CIED management. Results: Fourteen nurses described the informed consent process as overly focused on procedures, with inadequate coverage of living with a device (e.g., infection risks and device shocks). Elderly patients were especially vulnerable to physician or family pressure about CIED implantation. Nurses believed that initial advance care planning discussions were infrequent and rarely revisited when health status changed. Many patients did not know that CIEDs could be deactivated; it was often addressed reactively (i.e., after multiple shocks) or when patients became too ill to participate in decision making. Nurses generally were supportive of CIED deactivation when it was requested by a well-informed patient. However, nurses distinguished between withholding versus withdrawing treatment (i.e., turning off CIEDs vs. declining implantation). Although most patients viewed their device as lifesaving, others perceived them as a "ticking time bomb." Conclusions: Nurses identified concerns about CIED decision making from implantation through end-of-life care and device deactivation and suggested avenues for improving patient care including early and regular advance care planning.

AB - Purpose: This study aims to identify nurses' concerns about the clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of deactivating cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Methods: We used focus groups to discuss decision making in CIED management. Results: Fourteen nurses described the informed consent process as overly focused on procedures, with inadequate coverage of living with a device (e.g., infection risks and device shocks). Elderly patients were especially vulnerable to physician or family pressure about CIED implantation. Nurses believed that initial advance care planning discussions were infrequent and rarely revisited when health status changed. Many patients did not know that CIEDs could be deactivated; it was often addressed reactively (i.e., after multiple shocks) or when patients became too ill to participate in decision making. Nurses generally were supportive of CIED deactivation when it was requested by a well-informed patient. However, nurses distinguished between withholding versus withdrawing treatment (i.e., turning off CIEDs vs. declining implantation). Although most patients viewed their device as lifesaving, others perceived them as a "ticking time bomb." Conclusions: Nurses identified concerns about CIED decision making from implantation through end-of-life care and device deactivation and suggested avenues for improving patient care including early and regular advance care planning.

KW - Device deactivation

KW - Ethics

KW - Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

KW - Nursing

KW - Pacemakers

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855590123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855590123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10840-011-9596-7

DO - 10.1007/s10840-011-9596-7

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 243

EP - 252

JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

SN - 1383-875X

IS - 3

ER -