Lucas S Zier1, Jeffrey H Burack2, Guy Micco3, Anne K Chipman1, James A Frank4, Douglas B White5. 1. University of California, Berkeley-University of California, San Francisco Joint Medical Program, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 2. University of California, Berkeley-University of California, San Francisco Joint Medical Program, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA; Division of Community Health and Human Development, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA; East Bay AIDS Research Institute, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Oakland, CA. 3. University of California, Berkeley-University of California, San Francisco Joint Medical Program, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA; Division of Community Health and Human Development, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 4. The San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 5. School of Medicine, and the Program in Medical Ethics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: dwhite@medicine.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although physicians sometimes use the futility rationale to limit the use of life-sustaining treatments, little is known about how surrogate decision makers view this rationale. We sought to determine the attitudes of surrogates of patients who are critically ill toward whether physicians can predict futility and whether these attitudes predict surrogates' willingness to discontinue life support when faced with predictions of futility. METHODS: This multicenter, mixed qualitative and quantitative study took place at three hospitals in California from 2006 to 2007. We conducted semistructured interviews with surrogate decision makers for 50 patients who were critically ill and incapacitated that addressed their beliefs about medical futility and inductively developed an organizing framework to describe these beliefs. We used a hypothetical scenario with a modified time-trade-off design to examine the relationship between a patient's prognosis and a surrogate's willingness to withdraw life support. We used a mixed-effects regression model to examine the association between surrogates' attitudes about futility and their willingness to limit life support in the face of a very poor prognosis. Validation methods included the use and integration of multiple data sources, multidisciplinary analysis, and member checking. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of surrogates (n = 32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 49 to 77%) expressed doubt about the accuracy of physicians' futility predictions, 32% of surrogates (n = 16; 95% CI, 20 to 47%) elected to continue life support with a < 1% survival estimate, and 18% of surrogates (n = 9; 95% CI, 9 to 31%) elected to continue treatment when the physician believed that the patient had no chance of survival. Surrogates with religious objections to the futility rationale (n = 18) were more likely to request continued life support (odds ratio, 4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 14.0; p = 0.03) than those with secular or experiential objections (n = 15; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.4; p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Doubt about physicians' ability to predict medical futility is common among surrogate decision makers. The nature of the doubt may have implications for responding to conflicts about futility in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Although physicians sometimes use the futility rationale to limit the use of life-sustaining treatments, little is known about how surrogate decision makers view this rationale. We sought to determine the attitudes of surrogates of patients who are critically ill toward whether physicians can predict futility and whether these attitudes predict surrogates' willingness to discontinue life support when faced with predictions of futility. METHODS: This multicenter, mixed qualitative and quantitative study took place at three hospitals in California from 2006 to 2007. We conducted semistructured interviews with surrogate decision makers for 50 patients who were critically ill and incapacitated that addressed their beliefs about medical futility and inductively developed an organizing framework to describe these beliefs. We used a hypothetical scenario with a modified time-trade-off design to examine the relationship between a patient's prognosis and a surrogate's willingness to withdraw life support. We used a mixed-effects regression model to examine the association between surrogates' attitudes about futility and their willingness to limit life support in the face of a very poor prognosis. Validation methods included the use and integration of multiple data sources, multidisciplinary analysis, and member checking. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of surrogates (n = 32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 49 to 77%) expressed doubt about the accuracy of physicians' futility predictions, 32% of surrogates (n = 16; 95% CI, 20 to 47%) elected to continue life support with a < 1% survival estimate, and 18% of surrogates (n = 9; 95% CI, 9 to 31%) elected to continue treatment when the physician believed that the patient had no chance of survival. Surrogates with religious objections to the futility rationale (n = 18) were more likely to request continued life support (odds ratio, 4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 14.0; p = 0.03) than those with secular or experiential objections (n = 15; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.4; p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Doubt about physicians' ability to predict medical futility is common among surrogate decision makers. The nature of the doubt may have implications for responding to conflicts about futility in clinical practice.
Authors: Michael D Cantor; Clarence H Braddock; Arthur R Derse; Denise Murray Edwards; Gerald L Logue; William Nelson; Angela M Prudhomme; Robert A Pearlman; James E Reagan; Ginger Schafer Wlody; Ellen Fox Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003 Dec 8-22
Authors: Corey R Fehnel; Miguel Armengol de la Hoz; Leo A Celi; Margaret L Campbell; Khalid Hanafy; Ala Nozari; Douglas B White; Susan L Mitchell Journal: Chest Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Lucas S Zier; Peter D Sottile; Seo Yeon Hong; Lisa A Weissfield; Douglas B White Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Douglas B White; Shannon Carson; Wendy Anderson; Jay Steingrub; Garrett Bird; J Randall Curtis; Michael Matthay; Michael Peterson; Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk; Anne-Marie Shields; Natalie Ernecoff; Kaitlin Shotsberger; Lisa Weissfeld; Chung-Chou H Chang; Francis Pike; Bernard Lo; Catherine L Hough Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Justin J Sanders; Vinca Chow; Andrea C Enzinger; Tai-Chung Lam; Patrick T Smith; Rebecca Quiñones; Andrew Baccari; Sarah Philbrick; Gloria White-Hammond; John Peteet; Tracy A Balboni; Michael J Balboni Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 2.947