BACKGROUND: The communication of prognosis in end-of-life (EOL) care is a challenging task that is limited by prognostic uncertainty and physicians' lack of confidence in their prognostic estimates. Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are increasingly common evidence-based tools that may mitigate these problems and facilitate the communication and use of prognostic information in EOL care; however, little is known about physicians' perceptions of the value of these tools. OBJECTIVE: To explore physicians' perceptions of the value of CPMs in EOL care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews which were analysed using a constant comparative method. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 17 attending physicians representing five different medical specialties at a single large tertiary care medical centre. RESULTS: Physicians perceived CPMs as having three main benefits in EOL care: (i) enhancing their prognostic confidence; (ii) increasing their prognostic authority; and (iii) enabling patient persuasion in circumstances of low prognostic and therapeutic uncertainty. However, physicians also perceived CPMs as having potential risks, which include producing emotional distress in patients and promoting prognostic overconfidence in EOL care. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceive CPMs as a potentially valuable means of increasing their prognostic confidence, communication and explicit use of prognostic information in EOL care. However, physicians' perceptions of CPMs also indicate a need to establish broad and consistent implementation processes to engage patients in shared decision making in EOL care, to effectively communicate uncertainty in prognostic information and to help both patients and physicians manage uncertainty in EOL care decisions.
BACKGROUND: The communication of prognosis in end-of-life (EOL) care is a challenging task that is limited by prognostic uncertainty and physicians' lack of confidence in their prognostic estimates. Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are increasingly common evidence-based tools that may mitigate these problems and facilitate the communication and use of prognostic information in EOL care; however, little is known about physicians' perceptions of the value of these tools. OBJECTIVE: To explore physicians' perceptions of the value of CPMs in EOL care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews which were analysed using a constant comparative method. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 17 attending physicians representing five different medical specialties at a single large tertiary care medical centre. RESULTS: Physicians perceived CPMs as having three main benefits in EOL care: (i) enhancing their prognostic confidence; (ii) increasing their prognostic authority; and (iii) enabling patient persuasion in circumstances of low prognostic and therapeutic uncertainty. However, physicians also perceived CPMs as having potential risks, which include producing emotional distress in patients and promoting prognostic overconfidence in EOL care. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceive CPMs as a potentially valuable means of increasing their prognostic confidence, communication and explicit use of prognostic information in EOL care. However, physicians' perceptions of CPMs also indicate a need to establish broad and consistent implementation processes to engage patients in shared decision making in EOL care, to effectively communicate uncertainty in prognostic information and to help both patients and physicians manage uncertainty in EOL care decisions.
Authors: Paul K J Han; Minjung Lee; Bryce B Reeve; Angela B Mariotto; Zhuoqiao Wang; Ron D Hays; K Robin Yabroff; Marie Topor; Eric J Feuer Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Josephine M Clayton; Karen M Hancock; Phyllis N Butow; Martin H N Tattersall; David C Currow; Jonathan Adler; Sanchia Aranda; Kirsten Auret; Fran Boyle; Annette Britton; Richard Chye; Katy Clark; Patricia Davidson; Jan Maree Davis; Afaf Girgis; Sara Graham; Janet Hardy; Kate Introna; John Kearsley; Ian Kerridge; Linda Kristjanson; Peter Martin; Amanda McBride; Anne Meller; Geoffrey Mitchell; Alison Moore; Beverley Noble; Ian Olver; Sharon Parker; Matthew Peters; Peter Saul; Cameron Stewart; Lyn Swinburne; Bernadette Tobin; Kathryn Tuckwell; Patsy Yates Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Wayne C Levy; Dariush Mozaffarian; David T Linker; Santosh C Sutradhar; Stefan D Anker; Anne B Cropp; Inder Anand; Aldo Maggioni; Paul Burton; Mark D Sullivan; Bertram Pitt; Philip A Poole-Wilson; Douglas L Mann; Milton Packer Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-03-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W A Knaus; F E Harrell; J Lynn; L Goldman; R S Phillips; A F Connors; N V Dawson; W J Fulkerson; R M Califf; N Desbiens; P Layde; R K Oye; P E Bellamy; R B Hakim; D P Wagner Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Karen Hancock; Josephine M Clayton; Sharon M Parker; Sharon Wal der; Phyllis N Butow; Sue Carrick; David Currow; Davina Ghersi; Paul Glare; Rebecca Hagerty; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Paul K J Han; Nathan F Dieckmann; Christina Holt; Caitlin Gutheil; Ellen Peters Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Christopher R Manz; Maria N Nelson; Chalanda N Evans; Susan H Regli; Nina O'Connor; Lynn M Schuchter; Lawrence N Shulman; Mitesh S Patel; Joanna Paladino; Judy A Shea Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: René J Kox; Jan L Hoving; Jos H Verbeek; Maria J E Schouten; Carel T J Hulshof; Haije Wind; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: D Révész; E G Engelhardt; J J Tamminga; F M N H Schramel; B D Onwuteaka-Philipsen; E M W van de Garde; E W Steyerberg; E P Jansma; H C W De Vet; V M H Coupé Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Jesse Moskowitz; Thomas Quinn; Muhammad W Khan; Lori Shutter; Robert Goldberg; Nananda Col; Kathleen M Mazor; Susanne Muehlschlegel Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2018-03-26
Authors: Dóra Révész; Ellen G Engelhardt; Johannes J Tamminga; Franz M N H Schramel; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Ewoudt M W van de Garde; Ewout W Steyerberg; Henrica C W de Vet; Veerle M H Coupé Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.037