Darin B Zahuranec1, Angela Fagerlin2, Brisa N Sánchez2, Meghan E Roney2, Bradford B Thompson2, Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis2, Lewis B Morgenstern2. 1. From the Stroke Program, Department of Neurology (D.B.Z., L.B.M.), Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (D.B.Z., A.F., M.E.R., A.F.-F.), Department of Internal Medicine (A.F.), and Department of Emergency Medicine (L.B.M.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research (A.F.); Departments of Biostatistics (B.N.S.) and Epidemiology (L.B.M.), University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor; and Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery (B.B.T.), Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, RI. zdarin@umich.edu. 2. From the Stroke Program, Department of Neurology (D.B.Z., L.B.M.), Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (D.B.Z., A.F., M.E.R., A.F.-F.), Department of Internal Medicine (A.F.), and Department of Emergency Medicine (L.B.M.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research (A.F.); Departments of Biostatistics (B.N.S.) and Epidemiology (L.B.M.), University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor; and Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery (B.B.T.), Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, RI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess physician prognosis and treatment recommendations for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and to determine the effect of providing physicians a validated prognostic score. METHODS: A written survey with 2 ICH scenarios was completed by practicing neurologists and neurosurgeons. Selected factors were randomly varied (patient older vs middle age, Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score 7T vs 11, and presence vs absence of a validated prognostic score). Outcomes included predicted 30-day mortality and recommendations for initial treatment intensity (6-point scale ranging from 1 = comfort only to 6 = full treatment). RESULTS: A total of 742 physicians were included (mean age 52, 32% neurosurgeons, 17% female). Physician predictions of 30-day mortality varied widely (mean [range] for the 4 possible combinations of age and GCS were 23% [0%-80%], 35% [0%-100%], 48% [0%-100%], and 58% [5%-100%]). Treatment recommendations also varied widely, with responses encompassing the full range of response options for each case. No physician demographic or personality characteristics were associated with treatment recommendations. Providing a prognostic score changed treatment recommendations, and the effect differed across cases. When the prognostic score suggested 0% chance of functional independence (76-year-old with GCS 7T), the likelihood of treatment limitations was increased (odds ratio [OR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.33) compared to no prognostic score. Conversely, if the score suggested a 66% chance of independence (63-year-old with GCS 11), treatment limitations were less likely (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians vary substantially in ICH prognostic estimates and treatment recommendations. This variability could have a profound effect on life and death decision-making and treatment for ICH.
OBJECTIVE: To assess physician prognosis and treatment recommendations for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and to determine the effect of providing physicians a validated prognostic score. METHODS: A written survey with 2 ICH scenarios was completed by practicing neurologists and neurosurgeons. Selected factors were randomly varied (patient older vs middle age, Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score 7T vs 11, and presence vs absence of a validated prognostic score). Outcomes included predicted 30-day mortality and recommendations for initial treatment intensity (6-point scale ranging from 1 = comfort only to 6 = full treatment). RESULTS: A total of 742 physicians were included (mean age 52, 32% neurosurgeons, 17% female). Physician predictions of 30-day mortality varied widely (mean [range] for the 4 possible combinations of age and GCS were 23% [0%-80%], 35% [0%-100%], 48% [0%-100%], and 58% [5%-100%]). Treatment recommendations also varied widely, with responses encompassing the full range of response options for each case. No physician demographic or personality characteristics were associated with treatment recommendations. Providing a prognostic score changed treatment recommendations, and the effect differed across cases. When the prognostic score suggested 0% chance of functional independence (76-year-old with GCS 7T), the likelihood of treatment limitations was increased (odds ratio [OR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.33) compared to no prognostic score. Conversely, if the score suggested a 66% chance of independence (63-year-old with GCS 11), treatment limitations were less likely (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians vary substantially in ICH prognostic estimates and treatment recommendations. This variability could have a profound effect on life and death decision-making and treatment for ICH.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Leah R Evans; Elizabeth A Boyd; Grace Malvar; Latifat Apatira; John M Luce; Bernard Lo; Douglas B White Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2008-10-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Natalia S Rost; Eric E Smith; Yuchiao Chang; Ryan W Snider; Rishi Chanderraj; Kristin Schwab; Emily FitzMaurice; Lauren Wendell; Joshua N Goldstein; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: D B Zahuranec; D L Brown; L D Lisabeth; N R Gonzales; P J Longwell; M A Smith; N M Garcia; L B Morgenstern Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Matthew B Maas; Brandon A Francis; Rajbeer S Sangha; Bryan D Lizza; Eric M Liotta; Andrew M Naidech Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Viren D Patel; Roxanna M Garcia; Dionne E Swor; Eric M Liotta; Matthew B Maas; Andrew Naidech Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Joseph R Linzey; Rachel Foshee; Sudharsan Srinivasan; Arjun R Adapa; Meghan L Wind; Carina Brake; Badih Junior Daou; Kyle Sheehan; Thomas C Schermerhorn; Teresa L Jacobs; Aditya S Pandey Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: David Y Hwang; Stacy Y Chu; Cameron A Dell; Mary J Sparks; Tiffany D Watson; Carl D Langefeld; Mary E Comeau; Jonathan Rosand; Thomas W K Battey; Sebastian Koch; Mario L Perez; Michael L James; Jessica McFarlin; Jennifer L Osborne; Daniel Woo; Steven J Kittner; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.210
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