Literature DB >> 2058868

Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions?

A B Seckler1, D E Meier, M Mulvihill, B E Paris.   

Abstract

Substituted judgment has been proposed as a method of promoting the autonomy of the mentally incapacitated patient, but little is known about the accuracy of surrogate decision makers in reflecting the true wishes of patients. In this study, surrogate decision makers' views (those of primary care providers and close family members) were compared with the decisions of currently competent chronically ill elderly patients, using a hypothetic cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenario under circumstances of current health and progressive dementia. Concordance between patients and their surrogates was evaluated by assessing percent agreement, kappa coefficient (for concordance beyond chance), and directionality of discrepant responses. Most patient respondents chose to be resuscitated in both scenarios. Although patients predicted that both their physicians (90%) and family members (87%) would accurately represent their wishes, neither family members nor physicians, in fact, were able to adequately predict patients' wishes in both scenarios (kappa less than or equal to 0.3 in all scenarios; percent agreement range, 59% to 88%). Few patients had ever discussed their resuscitation preferences with either their family member (16%) or their physician (7%). These results cast doubt on the usefulness of a strict substituted judgment standard as an approach to medical decision making for patients with diminished mental capacity.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2058868     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-115-2-92

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  71 in total

1.  Medical futility: towards consensus on disagreement.

Authors:  J T Berger; F Rosner; J Potash; P Kark; P Farnsworth; A J Bennett
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  1998-03

2.  The value of taking an 'ethics history'.

Authors:  G M Sayers; D Barratt; C Gothard; C Onnie; S Perera; D Schulman
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 3.  Withdrawing life support and resolution of conflict with families.

Authors:  Jenny Way; Anthony L Back; J Randall Curtis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-12-07

4.  [Reflections on living wills (I and II)].

Authors:  K Martínez Urionabarrenetxea
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.137

5.  From informed consent to substituted judgment: decision-making at the end-of-life.

Authors:  Mark Kuczewski
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2004-03

6.  Commentary--surgical decisions after breast cancer: can patients be too involved in decision making?

Authors:  Nananda F Col; Christine Duffy; Carol Landau
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Attitudes of European physicians, nurses, patients, and families regarding end-of-life decisions: the ETHICATT study.

Authors:  Charles L Sprung; Sara Carmel; Peter Sjokvist; Mario Baras; Simon L Cohen; Paulo Maia; Albertus Beishuizen; Daniel Nalos; Ivan Novak; Mia Svantesson; Julie Benbenishty; Beverly Henderson
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-10-26       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 8.  The pressure to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapy from critically ill patients in the United States.

Authors:  John M Luce; Douglas B White
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2007-03-22       Impact factor: 21.405

9.  Proxy consent: moral authority misconceived.

Authors:  A Wrigley
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Attitudes of Patients and Relatives Toward Disability and Treatment in Malignant MCA Infarction.

Authors:  Hermann Neugebauer; Matthias Schnabl; Dorothée Lulé; Peter U Heuschmann; Eric Jüttler
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.210

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.