Jared Chiarchiaro1, Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk, Robert M Arnold, Douglas B White. 1. 1Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 2Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 3Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 4Palliative and Supportive Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 5Program on Ethics and Decision Making in Critical Illness, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 6Center for Bioethics and Health Law, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although misperceptions about prognosis by surrogates in ICUs are common and influence treatment decisions, there is no validated, practical way to measure the effectiveness of prognostic communication. Surrogates' subjective ratings of quality of communication have been used in other domains as markers of effectiveness of communication. We sought to determine whether surrogates' subjective ratings of the quality of prognostic communication predict accurate expectation about prognosis by surrogates. DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional cohort study. Surrogates rated the quality of prognostic communication by survey. Physicians and surrogates gave their percentage estimate of patient survival on ICU day 3 on a 0-100 probability scale. We defined discordance about prognosis as a difference in the physician's and surrogate's estimates of greater than or equal to ±20%. We used multilevel logistic regression modeling to account for clustering under physicians and patients and adjust for confounders. SETTING: Medical-surgical, trauma, cardiac, and neurologic ICUs of five U.S. academic medical centers located in California, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. PATIENTS: Two hundred seventy-five patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome at high risk of death or severe functional impairment, their 546 surrogate decision makers, and their 150 physicians. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was no predictive utility of surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication about prognosis to identify inaccurate expectations about prognosis (odds ratio, 1.04 ± 0.07; p = 0.54). Surrogates' subjective ratings of the quality of communication about prognosis were high, as assessed with a variety of questions. Discordant prognostic estimates were present in 63.5% (95% CI, 59.0-67.9) of physician-surrogate pairs. CONCLUSIONS: Although most surrogates rate the quality of prognostic communication high, inaccurate expectations about prognosis are common among surrogates. Surrogates' ratings of the quality of prognostic communication do not reliably predict an accurate expectation about prognosis.
OBJECTIVE: Although misperceptions about prognosis by surrogates in ICUs are common and influence treatment decisions, there is no validated, practical way to measure the effectiveness of prognostic communication. Surrogates' subjective ratings of quality of communication have been used in other domains as markers of effectiveness of communication. We sought to determine whether surrogates' subjective ratings of the quality of prognostic communication predict accurate expectation about prognosis by surrogates. DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional cohort study. Surrogates rated the quality of prognostic communication by survey. Physicians and surrogates gave their percentage estimate of patient survival on ICU day 3 on a 0-100 probability scale. We defined discordance about prognosis as a difference in the physician's and surrogate's estimates of greater than or equal to ±20%. We used multilevel logistic regression modeling to account for clustering under physicians and patients and adjust for confounders. SETTING: Medical-surgical, trauma, cardiac, and neurologic ICUs of five U.S. academic medical centers located in California, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. PATIENTS: Two hundred seventy-five patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome at high risk of death or severe functional impairment, their 546 surrogate decision makers, and their 150 physicians. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was no predictive utility of surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication about prognosis to identify inaccurate expectations about prognosis (odds ratio, 1.04 ± 0.07; p = 0.54). Surrogates' subjective ratings of the quality of communication about prognosis were high, as assessed with a variety of questions. Discordant prognostic estimates were present in 63.5% (95% CI, 59.0-67.9) of physician-surrogate pairs. CONCLUSIONS: Although most surrogates rate the quality of prognostic communication high, inaccurate expectations about prognosis are common among surrogates. Surrogates' ratings of the quality of prognostic communication do not reliably predict an accurate expectation about prognosis.
Authors: K E Covinsky; J D Fuller; K Yaffe; C B Johnston; M B Hamel; J Lynn; J M Teno; R S Phillips 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: Dean Schillinger; John Piette; Kevin Grumbach; Frances Wang; Clifford Wilson; Carolyn Daher; Krishelle Leong-Grotz; Cesar Castro; Andrew B Bindman Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003-01-13
Authors: Thomas D Sequist; Eric C Schneider; Michael Anastario; Esosa G Odigie; Richard Marshall; William H Rogers; Dana Gelb Safran Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Leslie P Scheunemann; Natalie C Ernecoff; Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk; Shannon S Carson; Catherine L Hough; J Randall Curtis; Wendy G Anderson; Jay Steingrub; Bernard Lo; Michael Matthay; Robert M Arnold; Douglas B White Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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: Andrea J Loizeau; Michele L Shaffer; Daniel A Habtemariam; Laura C Hanson; Angelo E Volandes; Susan L Mitchell Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Angela O Suen; Rachel A Butler; Robert M Arnold; Brad Myers; Holly O Witteman; Christopher E Cox; Jennifer Gonzalez McComb; Praewpannanrai Buddadhumaruk; Anne-Marie Shields; Noah Morse; Amanda Argenas; Douglas B White Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-07
Authors: Andrew Rhodes; Laura E Evans; Waleed Alhazzani; Mitchell M Levy; Massimo Antonelli; Ricard Ferrer; Anand Kumar; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Derek C Angus; Djillali Annane; Richard J Beale; Geoffrey J Bellinghan; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig Coopersmith; Daniel P De Backer; Craig J French; Seitaro Fujishima; Herwig Gerlach; Jorge Luis Hidalgo; Steven M Hollenberg; Alan E Jones; Dilip R Karnad; Ruth M Kleinpell; Younsuk Koh; Thiago Costa Lisboa; Flavia R Machado; John J Marini; John C Marshall; John E Mazuski; Lauralyn A McIntyre; Anthony S McLean; Sangeeta Mehta; Rui P Moreno; John Myburgh; Paolo Navalesi; Osamu Nishida; Tiffany M Osborn; Anders Perner; Colleen M Plunkett; Marco Ranieri; Christa A Schorr; Maureen A Seckel; Christopher W Seymour; Lisa Shieh; Khalid A Shukri; Steven Q Simpson; Mervyn Singer; B Taylor Thompson; Sean R Townsend; Thomas Van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; W Joost Wiersinga; Janice L Zimmerman; R Phillip Dellinger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 17.440
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: Darin B Zahuranec; Renee R Anspach; Meghan E Roney; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis; Daniel M Connochie; Emily P Chen; Bradford B Thompson; Panayiotis N Varelas; Lewis B Morgenstern; Angela Fagerlin Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 2.947