Background Clinicians in the intensive care unit commonly face decisions involving withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, which present many clinical and ethical challenges. Communication and shared decision-making are key aspects relating to the transition from active treatment to end-of-life care. Objectives To explore the experiences and perspectives of nurses and physicians when initiating end-of-life care in the intensive care unit. Methods The study was conducted in a 24-bed intensive care unit in Melbourne, Australia. An interpretative, qualitative inquiry was used, with focus groups as the data collection method. Intensive care nurses and physicians were recruited to participate in a discipline-specific focus group. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to thematic data analysis. Results Five focus groups were conducted; 17 nurses and 11 physicians participated. The key aspects discussed included communication and shared decision-making. Themes related to communication included the timing of end-of-life care discussions and conducting difficult conversations. Implementation and multidisciplinary acceptance of end-of-life care plans and collaborative decisions involving patients and families were themes related to shared decision-making. Conclusions Effective communication and decision-making practices regarding initiating end-of-life care in the intensive care unit are important. Multidisciplinary implementation and acceptance of end-of-life care plans in the intensive care unit need improvement. Clear organizational processes that support the introduction of nurse and physician end-of-life care leaders are essential to optimize outcomes for patients, family members, and clinicians.

Objective To explore the use of sedatives and analgesics, tools for scoring level of sedation, sedation and pain protocols, and daily interruptions in sedation in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units and to examine doctors’ and nurses’ opinions about the sedation management of critically ill patients. Methods A cross-sectional Internet-based survey design was used. In total, 2146 members of professional critical care organizations in Australia and New Zealand were e-mailed the survey during a 4-month period in 2006 through 2007. Results Of 348 members (16% response rate) who accessed the survey, 246 (71%) completed all sections. Morphine, fentanyl, midazolam, and propofol were the most commonly used medicines. Newer medicines, such as dexmedetomidine and remifentanil, and inhalant medications, such as nitrous oxide and isoflurane, were rarely used by most respondents. Respondents used protocols to manage sedatives (54%) and analgesics (51%), and sedation assessment tools were regularly used by 72%. A total of 62% reported daily interruption of sedation; 23% used daily interruption for more than 75% of patients. A disparity was evident between respondents’ opinions on how deeply patients were usually sedated in practice and how deeply patients should ideally be sedated. Conclusions Newer medications are used much less than are traditional sedatives and analgesics. Sedation protocols are increasingly used in Australasia, despite equivocal evidence supporting their use. Similarly, daily interruption of sedation is common in management of patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Research is needed to explore contextual and personal factors that may affect sedation management.