BACKGROUND: Surrogates of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) want honest prognostic information, but they also want to hear good news. There has been little examination of how surrogates navigate these dual needs or how clinicians should respond. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was explore how surrogates in the ICU experience and cope with prognostic information and describe their recommendations for clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study with 30 surrogates facing life-sustaining treatment decisions in five ICUs in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with surrogates in the ICU focused on general experiences, emotional needs, informational needs, and recommendations for clinicians. We inductively analyzed transcripts for key themes using constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Surrogates experience a tension between wanting to know what to expect and needing to remain hopeful. This tension underlies their experience receiving prognostic information and may lead to behaviors that allow continued hope in the face of bad news, including: 1) focusing on small details rather than the big picture, 2) relying on gut instincts or personal beliefs about the patient, 3) seeking more positive prognostic information from other sources, and, for a minority, 4) avoiding or disbelieving prognostic information. Surrogates emphasize the importance of frequent communication and call on physicians to gently help them prepare for the worst and hope for the best. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogates in the ICU experience conflicting emotional and informational needs. They describe behaviors that give the appearance of avoiding bad news while simultaneously asking physicians to help them cope with prognostic information.
BACKGROUND: Surrogates of critically illpatients in the intensive care unit (ICU) want honest prognostic information, but they also want to hear good news. There has been little examination of how surrogates navigate these dual needs or how clinicians should respond. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was explore how surrogates in the ICU experience and cope with prognostic information and describe their recommendations for clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study with 30 surrogates facing life-sustaining treatment decisions in five ICUs in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with surrogates in the ICU focused on general experiences, emotional needs, informational needs, and recommendations for clinicians. We inductively analyzed transcripts for key themes using constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Surrogates experience a tension between wanting to know what to expect and needing to remain hopeful. This tension underlies their experience receiving prognostic information and may lead to behaviors that allow continued hope in the face of bad news, including: 1) focusing on small details rather than the big picture, 2) relying on gut instincts or personal beliefs about the patient, 3) seeking more positive prognostic information from other sources, and, for a minority, 4) avoiding or disbelieving prognostic information. Surrogates emphasize the importance of frequent communication and call on physicians to gently help them prepare for the worst and hope for the best. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogates in the ICU experience conflicting emotional and informational needs. They describe behaviors that give the appearance of avoiding bad news while simultaneously asking physicians to help them cope with prognostic information.
Authors: Yael Schenker; Megan Crowley-Matoka; Daniel Dohan; Greer A Tiver; Robert M Arnold; Douglas B White Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lucas S Zier; Peter D Sottile; Seo Yeon Hong; Lisa A Weissfield; Douglas B White Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: W Breitbart; B Rosenfeld; H Pessin; M Kaim; J Funesti-Esch; M Galietta; C J Nelson; R Brescia Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-12-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Ruth A Engelberg; Marjorie D Wenrich; Sarah E Shannon; Patsy D Treece; Gordon D Rubenfeld Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2005-01-07 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Douglas L Hill; Jennifer K Walter; Jessica A Casas; Concetta DiDomenico; Julia E Szymczak; Chris Feudtner Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Douglas L Hill; Jennifer K Walter; Julia E Szymczak; Concetta DiDomenico; Shefali Parikh; Chris Feudtner Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Xuemei Cai; Jennifer Robinson; Susanne Muehlschlegel; Douglas B White; Robert G Holloway; Kevin N Sheth; Liana Fraenkel; David Y Hwang Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Judith M Resick; Robert M Arnold; Rebecca L Sudore; David Farrell; Shane Belin; Andrew D Althouse; Betty Ferrell; Bernard J Hammes; Edward Chu; Douglas B White; Kimberly J Rak; Yael Schenker Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 2.226
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
Authors: Eduardo R Nunez; Yael Schenker; Ian D Joel; Charles F Reynolds; Mary Amanda Dew; Robert M Arnold; Amber E Barnato Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 7.598