Literature DB >> 27187301

Prevalence of and Factors Related to Discordance About Prognosis Between Physicians and Surrogate Decision Makers of Critically Ill Patients.

Douglas B White1, Natalie Ernecoff1, Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk1, Seoyeon Hong1, Lisa Weissfeld2, J Randall Curtis3, John M Luce4, Bernard Lo5.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Misperceptions about prognosis by individuals making decisions for incapacitated critically ill patients (surrogates) are common and often attributed to poor comprehension of medical information.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of and factors related to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis in intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Mixed-methods study comprising quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews conducted in 4 ICUs at a major US medical center involving surrogate decision makers and physicians caring for patients at high risk of death from January 4, 2005, to July 10, 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Discordance about prognosis, defined as a difference between a physician's and a surrogate's prognostic estimates of at least 20%; misunderstandings by surrogates (defined as any difference between a physician's prognostic estimate and a surrogate's best guess of that estimate); differences in belief (any difference between a surrogate's actual estimate and their best guess of the physician's estimate).
RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine surrogate decision makers (median age, 47 [interquartile range {IQR}, 35-56] years; 68% women) and 99 physicians were involved in the care of 174 critically ill patients (median age, 60 [IQR, 47-74] years; 44% women). Physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis occurred in 122 of 229 instances (53%; 95% CI, 46.8%-59.7%). In 65 instances (28%), discordance was related to both misunderstandings by surrogates and differences in belief about the patient's prognosis; 38 (17%) were related to misunderstandings by surrogates only; 7 (3%) were related to differences in belief only; and data were missing for 12. Seventy-five patients (43%) died. Surrogates' prognostic estimates were much more accurate than chance alone, but physicians' prognostic estimates were statistically significantly more accurate than surrogates' (C statistic, 0.83 vs 0.74; absolute difference, 0.094; 95% CI, 0.024-0.163; P = .008). Among 71 surrogates interviewed who had beliefs about the prognosis that were more optimistic than that of the physician, the most common reasons for optimism were a need to maintain hope to benefit the patient (n = 34), a belief that the patient had unique strengths unknown to the physician (n = 24), and religious belief (n = 19). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients, discordant expectations about prognosis were common between patients' physicians and surrogate decision makers and were related to misunderstandings by surrogates about physicians' assessments of patients' prognoses and differences in beliefs about patients' prognoses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27187301     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.5351

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  55 in total

1.  The emerging partnership between palliative care and stroke.

Authors:  Robert G Holloway; James L Bernat
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2017-06

2.  Incidence and Risk Model Development for Severe Tachypnea Following Terminal Extubation.

Authors:  Corey R Fehnel; Miguel Armengol de la Hoz; Leo A Celi; Margaret L Campbell; Khalid Hanafy; Ala Nozari; Douglas B White; Susan L Mitchell
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 3.  Time-limited trial of intensive care treatment: an overview of current literature.

Authors:  Eva E Vink; Elie Azoulay; Arthur Caplan; Erwin J O Kompanje; Jan Bakker
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  The Association of Surrogate Decision Makers' Religious and Spiritual Beliefs With End-of-Life Decisions.

Authors:  Alexia M Torke; George Fitchett; Saneta Maiko; Emily S Burke; James E Slaven; Beth Newton Watson; Steven Ivy; Patrick O Monahan
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 3.612

5.  What Does the Word "Treatable" Mean? Implications for Communication and Decision-Making in Critical Illness.

Authors:  Jason N Batten; Katherine E Kruse; Stephanie A Kraft; Bela Fishbeyn; David C Magnus
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  Prognostication during Critical Illness: Moving the Field Forward.

Authors:  Lauren E Ferrante
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2017-10

7.  Numeracy and Interpretation of Prognostic Estimates in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Among Surrogate Decision Makers in the Neurologic ICU.

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

8.  Quality versus quantity in end-of-life choices of cancer patients and support persons: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Amy Waller; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Scott D Brown; Laura Wall; Justin Walsh
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Characteristics and Outcomes of Ethics Consultations on a Comprehensive Cancer Center's Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Service.

Authors:  Virginia Corbett; Andrew S Epstein; Mary S McCabe
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2018-12

10.  Biobanking in the Pediatric Critical Care Setting: Adolescent/Young Adult Perspectives.

Authors:  Erin D Paquette; Sabrina F Derrington; Avani Shukla; Neha Sinha; Sarah Oswald; Lauren Sorce; Kelly N Michelson
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.