Literature DB >> 17205000

Prognostication during physician-family discussions about limiting life support in intensive care units.

Douglas B White1, Ruth A Engelberg, Marjorie D Wenrich, Bernard Lo, J Randall Curtis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Prognostic information is important to the family members of incapacitated, critically ill patients, yet little is known about what prognostic information physicians provide. Our objectives were to determine the types of prognostic information provided to families of critically ill patients when making major end-of-life treatment decisions and to identify factors associated with more physician prognostication.
DESIGN: Multiple-center, cross-sectional study.
SETTING: ICUs of four hospitals.
SUBJECTS: Thirty-five physicians, 51 patients, and 169 family members.
INTERVENTIONS: We audiotaped 51 physician-family conferences in which there were deliberations about major end-of-life treatment decisions at four hospitals in 2000-2002. Conferences were coded to identify the types of prognostic information provided by physicians. We used a mixed-effects regression model to identify factors associated with more prognostication by physicians.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The mean number of prognostic statements per conference was 9.4+/-6.4 (range 0-29). Eighty-six percent of conferences contained discussion of the patient's anticipated functional status or quality of life, compared with 63% in which the chances for survival were discussed (p=.01). There were significantly more statements about prognosis for functional outcomes per conference compared with statements about prognosis for survival (median 4 [interquartile range 2-8] vs. 1 [interquartile range 0-3]; p<.001). Increasing educational level of the family was independently associated with more prognostic statements by physicians (p<.001) as was the degree of physician-family conflict about withdrawing life support (p<.001) and the physician's race being white (p=.009).
CONCLUSIONS: Prognostication occurred frequently during physician-family deliberations about whether to forego life support, but physicians did not discuss the patient's prognosis for survival in more than one third of conferences. Less educated families received less information about prognosis. Future studies should address whether these observations partially explain the high prevalence of family misunderstandings about prognosis in intensive care units.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17205000     DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000254723.28270.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  67 in total

1.  Identifying elements of ICU care that families report as important but unsatisfactory: decision-making, control, and ICU atmosphere.

Authors:  Tristan R Osborn; J Randall Curtis; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Anthony L Back; Sarah E Shannon; Ruth A Engelberg
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  A randomized trial of two methods to disclose prognosis to surrogate decision makers in intensive care units.

Authors:  Susan J Lee Char; Leah R Evans; Grace L Malvar; Douglas B White
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 21.405

3.  Update in palliative care--2011.

Authors:  Patricia F Harris; Robert M Arnold; Ursula K Braun; Erik Fromme; Rahwa Ghermay; Stephanie Harman; Robert L Jayes; Anne M Walling
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Alterations during medical interpretation of ICU family conferences that interfere with or enhance communication.

Authors:  Kiemanh Pham; J Daryl Thornton; Ruth A Engelberg; J Carey Jackson; J Randall Curtis
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  Do physicians disclose uncertainty when discussing prognosis in grave critical illness?

Authors:  Rachel A Schuster; Seo Yeon Hong; Robert M Arnold; Douglas B White
Journal:  Narrat Inq Bioeth       Date:  2012

6.  Numeracy and Interpretation of Prognostic Estimates in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Among Surrogate Decision Makers in the Neurologic ICU.

Authors:  Nikita Leiter; Melissa Motta; Robert M Reed; Temitope Adeyeye; Debra L Wiegand; Nirav G Shah; Avelino C Verceles; Giora Netzer
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  A scenario-based, randomized trial of patient values and functional prognosis on intensivist intent to discuss withdrawing life support.

Authors:  Alison E Turnbull; Jenna R Krall; A Parker Ruhl; J Randall Curtis; Scott D Halpern; Bryan M Lau; Dale M Needham
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Hope, truth, and preparing for death: perspectives of surrogate decision makers.

Authors:  Latifat Apatira; Elizabeth A Boyd; Grace Malvar; Leah R Evans; John M Luce; Bernard Lo; Douglas B White
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Expectations and outcomes of prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Christopher E Cox; Tereza Martinu; Shailaja J Sathy; Alison S Clay; Jessica Chia; Alice L Gray; Maren K Olsen; Joseph A Govert; Shannon S Carson; James A Tulsky
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.598

10.  Spiritual and Religious Coping of Medical Decision Makers for Hospitalized Older Adult Patients.

Authors:  Saneta M Maiko; Steven Ivy; Beth Newton Watson; Kianna Montz; Alexia M Torke
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 2.947

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.