RATIONALE: Surrogate decision makers and clinicians often have discordant perceptions about a patient's prognosis. There is a paucity of empirical data to guide communication about prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess: (1) whether numeric or qualitative statements more reliably convey prognostic estimates; and (2) whether surrogates believe physicians' prognostic estimates. METHODS: A total of 169 surrogate decision makers for intensive care unit patients were randomized to view 1 of 2 versions of a video portraying a simulated family conference involving a hypothetical patient. The videos varied only by whether prognosis was conveyed in numeric terms ("10% chance of surviving") or qualitative terms ("very unlikely" to survive). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed: (1) surrogates' personal estimates of the patient's prognosis; and (2) surrogates' understanding of the physician's prognostic estimate. Neither surrogates' personal estimates nor their understanding of the physician's prognostication differed when prognosis was conveyed numerically versus qualitatively (surrogates' estimate, 22 ± 23% chance of survival versus 26 ± 24%, P = 0.26; understanding of physician's estimate, 17 ± 22% chance of survival versus 16 ± 17%, P = 0.62). One in five surrogates estimated the patient's prognosis was greater than 20% more optimistic than the physician's prognostication. Less trust in physicians was associated with larger discrepancies between surrogates' personal estimates and their understanding of the physician's estimate. CONCLUSIONS: Neither numeric nor qualitative statements reliably convey news of a poor prognosis to surrogates in intensive care units. Many surrogates do not view physicians' prognostications as absolutely accurate. Factors other than ineffective communication may contribute to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Surrogate decision makers and clinicians often have discordant perceptions about a patient's prognosis. There is a paucity of empirical data to guide communication about prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess: (1) whether numeric or qualitative statements more reliably convey prognostic estimates; and (2) whether surrogates believe physicians' prognostic estimates. METHODS: A total of 169 surrogate decision makers for intensive care unit patients were randomized to view 1 of 2 versions of a video portraying a simulated family conference involving a hypothetical patient. The videos varied only by whether prognosis was conveyed in numeric terms ("10% chance of surviving") or qualitative terms ("very unlikely" to survive). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed: (1) surrogates' personal estimates of the patient's prognosis; and (2) surrogates' understanding of the physician's prognostic estimate. Neither surrogates' personal estimates nor their understanding of the physician's prognostication differed when prognosis was conveyed numerically versus qualitatively (surrogates' estimate, 22 ± 23% chance of survival versus 26 ± 24%, P = 0.26; understanding of physician's estimate, 17 ± 22% chance of survival versus 16 ± 17%, P = 0.62). One in five surrogates estimated the patient's prognosis was greater than 20% more optimistic than the physician's prognostication. Less trust in physicians was associated with larger discrepancies between surrogates' personal estimates and their understanding of the physician's estimate. CONCLUSIONS: Neither numeric nor qualitative statements reliably convey news of a poor prognosis to surrogates in intensive care units. Many surrogates do not view physicians' prognostications as absolutely accurate. Factors other than ineffective communication may contribute to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis.
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Ruth A Engelberg; Marjorie D Wenrich; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Sarah E Shannon; Patsy D Treece; Mark R Tonelli; Donald L Patrick; Lynne S Robins; Barbara B McGrath; Gordon D Rubenfeld Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: J M Teno; E Fisher; M B Hamel; A W Wu; D J Murphy; N S Wenger; J Lynn; F E Harrell Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: E Azoulay; S Chevret; G Leleu; F Pochard; M Barboteu; C Adrie; P Canoui; J R Le Gall; B Schlemmer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Elizabeth Chaitin; Ronald Stiller; Samuel Jacobs; Joyce Hershl; Tracy Grogen; Joel Weinberg Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Dean Schillinger; John Piette; Kevin Grumbach; Frances Wang; Clifford Wilson; Carolyn Daher; Krishelle Leong-Grotz; Cesar Castro; Andrew B Bindman Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003-01-13
Authors: Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Annette M O'Connor; Elizabeth Drake; Jennifer Biggs; Valerie Hum; Andreas Laupacis Journal: Health Expect Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Donald R Sullivan; Xinggang Liu; Douglas S Corwin; Avelino C Verceles; Michael T McCurdy; Drew A Pate; Jennifer M Davis; Giora Netzer Journal: Chest Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Laura B Vater; Julie M Donohue; Robert Arnold; Douglas B White; Edward Chu; Yael Schenker Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 25.391
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
Authors: Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melissa W Wachterman; Edward R Marcantonio; Roger B Davis; Robert A Cohen; Sushrut S Waikar; Russell S Phillips; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 21.873