BACKGROUND: Little is known about why surrogate decision makers for patients with advanced illness often have overly optimistic expectations about prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To determine how surrogates interpret prognostic statements and to explore factors influencing surrogates' interpretations of grim prognostic information. DESIGN: Multicenter, mixed-methods study. SETTING: Intensive care units of 3 hospitals in San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: 80 surrogates of critically ill patients. MEASUREMENTS: Participants recorded their interpretation of 16 prognostic statements using a standard probability scale. Generalized estimating equations were used to determine whether participants interpreted statements more optimistically as the expressed probability of survival decreased. Fifteen surrogates whose responses exhibited this trend participated in a semistructured interview. RESULTS: Participants' interpretations of prognostic statements expressing a low risk for death were relatively accurate, but interpretations of statements conveying a high risk for death were more optimistic than the actual meaning (P < 0.001; generalized estimating equation model). Interpretations of the statement "90% chance of surviving" did not differ from the actual meaning, but interpretations of "5% chance of surviving" were more optimistic and showed substantial variability (median, 90% [interquartile range, 90% to 95%; P = 0.11] vs. 15% [interquartile range, 5% to 40%; P < 0.001], respectively). Two main themes from the interviews explained this trend: surrogates' need to register optimism in the face of a poor prognosis and surrogates' belief that patient attributes unknown to the physician would lead to better-than-predicted outcomes. LIMITATION: Surrogates' interpretations were elicited in an experimental setting rather than during actual clinician-surrogate conversations. CONCLUSION: Inaccurate interpretations of physicians' prognostications by surrogates arise partly from optimistic biases rather than simply from misunderstandings. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about why surrogate decision makers for patients with advanced illness often have overly optimistic expectations about prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To determine how surrogates interpret prognostic statements and to explore factors influencing surrogates' interpretations of grim prognostic information. DESIGN: Multicenter, mixed-methods study. SETTING: Intensive care units of 3 hospitals in San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: 80 surrogates of critically illpatients. MEASUREMENTS: Participants recorded their interpretation of 16 prognostic statements using a standard probability scale. Generalized estimating equations were used to determine whether participants interpreted statements more optimistically as the expressed probability of survival decreased. Fifteen surrogates whose responses exhibited this trend participated in a semistructured interview. RESULTS:Participants' interpretations of prognostic statements expressing a low risk for death were relatively accurate, but interpretations of statements conveying a high risk for death were more optimistic than the actual meaning (P < 0.001; generalized estimating equation model). Interpretations of the statement "90% chance of surviving" did not differ from the actual meaning, but interpretations of "5% chance of surviving" were more optimistic and showed substantial variability (median, 90% [interquartile range, 90% to 95%; P = 0.11] vs. 15% [interquartile range, 5% to 40%; P < 0.001], respectively). Two main themes from the interviews explained this trend: surrogates' need to register optimism in the face of a poor prognosis and surrogates' belief that patient attributes unknown to the physician would lead to better-than-predicted outcomes. LIMITATION: Surrogates' interpretations were elicited in an experimental setting rather than during actual clinician-surrogate conversations. CONCLUSION: Inaccurate interpretations of physicians' prognostications by surrogates arise partly from optimistic biases rather than simply from misunderstandings. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
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: Lucas S Zier; Jeffrey H Burack; Guy Micco; Anne K Chipman; James A Frank; John M Luce; Douglas B White Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Douglas B White; Ruth A Engelberg; Marjorie D Wenrich; Bernard Lo; J Randall Curtis Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Matthew R Baldwin; Hannah Wunsch; Paul A Reyfman; Wazim R Narain; Craig D Blinderman; Neil W Schluger; M Cary Reid; Mathew S Maurer; Nathan Goldstein; David J Lederer; Peter Bach Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2013-10
Authors: Ryan T Anderson; Hailey Cleek; Atieh S Pajouhi; M Fernanda Bellolio; Ananya Mayukha; Allyson Hart; LaTonya J Hickson; Molly A Feely; Michael E Wilson; Ryan M Giddings Connolly; Patricia J Erwin; Abdul M Majzoub; Navdeep Tangri; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 8.237
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: Hermann Neugebauer; Matthias Schnabl; Dorothée Lulé; Peter U Heuschmann; Eric Jüttler Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.210