BACKGROUND: Surrogate accuracy in predicting patient treatment preferences (i.e., what patients want) has been studied extensively, but it is not known whether surrogates can predict how patients want loved ones to make end-of-life decisions on their behalf. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of family members to correctly identify the preferences of seriously-ill patients regarding family involvement in decision making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five pancreatic cancer and 27 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients and their family members (52 dyads total). MAIN MEASURES: Patients and family members completed the Decision Control Preferences (DCP) scale regarding patient preferences for family involvement in health care decisions using conscious and unconscious scenarios. KEY RESULTS: Patient and family member agreement was 56% (29/52 dyads) for the conscious scenario (kappa 0.29) and 46% (24/52 dyads) for the unconscious scenario (kappa 0.15). Twenty-four family members identified the patient's preference as independent in the unconscious scenario, but six of these patients actually preferred shared decision making and six preferred reliant decision making. In the conscious scenario, preference for independent decision making was associated with higher odds of patient-family agreement (AOR 5.28, 1.07-26.06). In the unconscious scenario, cancer patients had a higher odds of agreement than ALS patients (AOR 3.86; 95% CI 1.02-14.54). CONCLUSION: Family members were often unable to correctly identify patient preferences for family involvement in end-of-life decision making, especially when patients desired that decisions be made using the best-interest standard. Clinicians and family members should consider explicitly eliciting patient preferences for family involvement in decision making. Additional research is still needed to identify interventions to improve family member understanding of patient preferences regarding the decision-making process itself.
BACKGROUND: Surrogate accuracy in predicting patient treatment preferences (i.e., what patients want) has been studied extensively, but it is not known whether surrogates can predict how patients want loved ones to make end-of-life decisions on their behalf. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of family members to correctly identify the preferences of seriously-ill patients regarding family involvement in decision making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five pancreatic cancer and 27 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients and their family members (52 dyads total). MAIN MEASURES: Patients and family members completed the Decision Control Preferences (DCP) scale regarding patient preferences for family involvement in health care decisions using conscious and unconscious scenarios. KEY RESULTS:Patient and family member agreement was 56% (29/52 dyads) for the conscious scenario (kappa 0.29) and 46% (24/52 dyads) for the unconscious scenario (kappa 0.15). Twenty-four family members identified the patient's preference as independent in the unconscious scenario, but six of these patients actually preferred shared decision making and six preferred reliant decision making. In the conscious scenario, preference for independent decision making was associated with higher odds of patient-family agreement (AOR 5.28, 1.07-26.06). In the unconscious scenario, cancerpatients had a higher odds of agreement than ALSpatients (AOR 3.86; 95% CI 1.02-14.54). CONCLUSION: Family members were often unable to correctly identify patient preferences for family involvement in end-of-life decision making, especially when patients desired that decisions be made using the best-interest standard. Clinicians and family members should consider explicitly eliciting patient preferences for family involvement in decision making. Additional research is still needed to identify interventions to improve family member understanding of patient preferences regarding the decision-making process itself.
Authors: Daniel P Sulmasy; Johanna R Sood; Kenneth Texiera; Ruth L McAuley; Jennifer McGugins; Wayne A Ury Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: P H Ditto; J H Danks; W D Smucker; J Bookwala; K M Coppola; R Dresser; A Fagerlin; R M Gready; R M Houts; L K Lockhart; S Zyzanski Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2001-02-12
Authors: Daniel P Sulmasy; Mark T Hughes; Gayane Yenokyan; Joan Kub; Peter B Terry; Alan B Astrow; Julie A Johnson; Grace Ho; Marie T Nolan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Alaina J Brown; Megan J Shen; Lois M Ramondetta; Diane C Bodurka; Robert L Giuntoli; Teresa Diaz-Montes Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Danny G Willis; Marie Bakitas; Beth Crandall; Pamela J Grace Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Dong Wook Shin; Juhee Cho; Debra L Roter; So Young Kim; Jong Hyock Park; Hyung Kook Yang; Hyun Woo Lee; Sun-Seog Kweon; Yune Sik Kang; Keeho Park Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Stefanie Danielle Piña-Escudero; Roberto De Jesús García-Avilés; Armando Iván Fajardo-Juárez; César Urtiz López; Ana Karene Del Moral-Trejo; Pedro Manuel Ramírez-Ambriz; Alejandro Tovar-Serrano; García-Lara Juan Miguel Antonio Journal: Indian J Palliat Care Date: 2019 Jan-Mar
Authors: Muhammad M Hammami; Kafa Abuhdeeb; Muhammad B Hammami; Sophia J S De Padua; Areej Al-Balkhi Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 2.652