Literature DB >> 21357911

Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others.

David Wendler1, Annette Rid.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice relies on surrogates to make or help to make treatment decisions for incapacitated adults; however, the effect of this practice on surrogates has not been evaluated.
PURPOSE: To assess the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for adults who cannot make their own decisions. DATA SOURCES: Empirical studies published in English and listed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOETHICSLINE, PsycINFO, or Scopus before 1 July 2010. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies provided quantitative or qualitative empirical data, by evaluating surrogates, regarding the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for an incapacitated adult. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study location, number and type of surrogates, timing of data collection, type of decisions, patient setting, methods, main findings, and limitations. DATA SYNTHESIS: 40 studies, 29 using qualitative and 11 using quantitative methods, provided data on 2854 surrogates, more than one half of whom were family members of the patient. Most surrogates were surveyed several months to years after making treatment decisions, the majority of which were end-of-life decisions. The quantitative studies found that at least one third of surrogates experienced a negative emotional burden as the result of making treatment decisions. The qualitative studies reported that many or most surrogates experienced negative emotional burden. The negative effects on surrogates were often substantial and typically lasted months or, in some cases, years. The most common negative effects cited by surrogates were stress, guilt over the decisions they made, and doubt regarding whether they had made the right decisions. Nine of the 40 studies also reported beneficial effects on a few surrogates, the most common of which were supporting the patient and feeling a sense of satisfaction. Knowing which treatment is consistent with the patient's preferences was frequently cited as reducing the negative effect on surrogates. LIMITATIONS: Thirty-two of the 40 articles reported data collected in the United States. Because the study populations were relatively homogenous, it is unclear whether the findings apply to other groups. In some cases, the effect of making treatment decisions could not be isolated from that of other stressors, such as grief or prognostic uncertainty. Nine of the studies had a response rate less than 50%, and 9 did not report a response rate. Many of the studies had a substantial interval between the treatment decisions and data collection.
CONCLUSION: Making treatment decisions has a negative emotional effect on at least one third of surrogates, which is often substantial and typically lasts months (or sometimes years). Future research should evaluate ways to reduce this burden, including methods to identify which treatment options are consistent with the patient's preferences. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21357911     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-5-201103010-00008

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


  175 in total

1.  Learned helplessness among families and surrogate decision-makers of patients admitted to medical, surgical, and trauma ICUs.

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

2.  "Her husband doesn't speak much English": conducting a family meeting with an interpreter.

Authors:  Yael Schenker; Alexander K Smith; Robert M Arnold; Alicia Fernandez
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 2.947

3.  Undetected cognitive impairment and decision-making capacity in patients receiving hospice care.

Authors:  Cynthia Z Burton; Elizabeth W Twamley; Lana C Lee; Barton W Palmer; Dilip V Jeste; Laura B Dunn; Scott A Irwin
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.105

4.  Advance Care Planning. Does It Benefit Surrogate Decision Makers in the Intensive Care Unit?

Authors:  Donald R Sullivan; Christopher G Slatore
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2015-10

5.  Default options in advance directives influence how patients set goals for end-of-life care.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; George Loewenstein; Kevin G Volpp; Elizabeth Cooney; Kelly Vranas; Caroline M Quill; Mary S McKenzie; Michael O Harhay; Nicole B Gabler; Tatiana Silva; Robert Arnold; Derek C Angus; Cindy Bryce
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Development of a post-intensive care unit storytelling intervention for surrogates involved in decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment.

Authors:  Yael Schenker; Mary Amanda Dew; Charles F Reynolds; Robert M Arnold; Greer A Tiver; Amber E Barnato
Journal:  Palliat Support Care       Date:  2014-02-13

7.  [Communicating with families in the ICU : Background and practical recommendations].

Authors:  C S Hartog; S Jöbges; O Kumpf; U Janssens
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 0.840

8.  Characteristics Associated With Preferences for Parent-Centered Decision Making in Neonatal Intensive Care.

Authors:  Elliott Mark Weiss; Dawei Xie; Noah Cook; Katherine Coughlin; Steven Joffe
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 16.193

9.  Factors affecting stress experienced by surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients: implications for nursing practice.

Authors:  Ellen Iverson; Aaron Celious; Carie R Kennedy; Erica Shehane; Alexander Eastman; Victoria Warren; Bradley D Freeman
Journal:  Intensive Crit Care Nurs       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 3.072

10.  Characteristics and Outcomes of Ethics Consultations on a Comprehensive Cancer Center's Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Service.

Authors:  Virginia Corbett; Andrew S Epstein; Mary S McCabe
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2018-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.