Thomas Quinn1, Jesse Moskowitz1, Muhammad W Khan1, Lori Shutter2, Robert Goldberg3, Nananda Col4, Kathleen M Mazor5,6, Susanne Muehlschlegel7,8,9. 1. Department of Neurology (Neurocritical Care), University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave North, S-5, Worcester, MA, USA. 2. Departments of Critical Care Medicine & Neurology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 4. Shared Decision Making Resources, Georgetown, ME, USA. 5. Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 7. Department of Neurology (Neurocritical Care), University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave North, S-5, Worcester, MA, USA. susanne.muehlschlegel@umassmemorial.org. 8. Department of Anesthesiology/Critical Care, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. susanne.muehlschlegel@umassmemorial.org. 9. Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. susanne.muehlschlegel@umassmemorial.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surrogate decision-makers ("surrogates") and physicians of incapacitated patients have different views of prognosis and how it should be communicated, but this has not been investigated in neurocritically ill patients. We examined surrogates' communication preferences and physicians' practices during the outcome prognostication for critically ill traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) patients in two level-1 trauma centers and seven academic medical centers in the USA. METHODS: We used qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics of transcribed interviews to identify themes in surrogates (n = 16) and physicians (n = 20). RESULTS: The majority of surrogates (82%) preferred numeric estimates describing the patient's prognosis, as they felt it would increase prognostic certainty, and limit the uncertainty perceived as frustrating. Conversely, 75% of the physicians reported intentionally omitting numeric estimates during prognostication meetings due to low confidence in family members' abilities to appropriately interpret probabilities, worry about creating false hope, and distrust in the accuracy and data quality of existing TBI outcome models. Physicians felt that these models are for research only and should not be applied to individual patients. Surrogates valued compassion during prognostication discussions, and acceptance of their goals-of-care decision by clinicians. Physicians and surrogates agreed on avoiding false hope. CONCLUSION: We identified fundamental differences in the communication preferences of prognostic information between ciTBI patient surrogates and physicians. These findings inform the content of a future decision aid for goals-of-care discussions in ciTBI patients. If validated, these findings may have important implications for improving communication practices in the neurointensive care unit independent of whether a formal decision aid is used.
BACKGROUND: Surrogate decision-makers ("surrogates") and physicians of incapacitated patients have different views of prognosis and how it should be communicated, but this has not been investigated in neurocritically illpatients. We examined surrogates' communication preferences and physicians' practices during the outcome prognostication for critically ill traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) patients in two level-1 trauma centers and seven academic medical centers in the USA. METHODS: We used qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics of transcribed interviews to identify themes in surrogates (n = 16) and physicians (n = 20). RESULTS: The majority of surrogates (82%) preferred numeric estimates describing the patient's prognosis, as they felt it would increase prognostic certainty, and limit the uncertainty perceived as frustrating. Conversely, 75% of the physicians reported intentionally omitting numeric estimates during prognostication meetings due to low confidence in family members' abilities to appropriately interpret probabilities, worry about creating false hope, and distrust in the accuracy and data quality of existing TBI outcome models. Physicians felt that these models are for research only and should not be applied to individual patients. Surrogates valued compassion during prognostication discussions, and acceptance of their goals-of-care decision by clinicians. Physicians and surrogates agreed on avoiding false hope. CONCLUSION: We identified fundamental differences in the communication preferences of prognostic information between ciTBIpatient surrogates and physicians. These findings inform the content of a future decision aid for goals-of-care discussions in ciTBIpatients. If validated, these findings may have important implications for improving communication practices in the neurointensive care unit independent of whether a formal decision aid is used.
Authors: France Légaré; Annette C O'Connor; Ian Graham; Danielle Saucier; Luc Côté; Michel Cauchon; Line Paré Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Alexis F Turgeon; François Lauzier; Karen E A Burns; Maureen O Meade; Damon C Scales; Ryan Zarychanski; Lynne Moore; David A Zygun; Lauralyn A McIntyre; Salmaan Kanji; Paul C Hébert; Valérie Murat; Giuseppe Pagliarello; Dean A Fergusson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; John E Wennberg; France Legare; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Benjamin W Moulton; Karen R Sepucha; Andrea G Sodano; Jaime S King Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Ahsan M Arozullah; Paul R Yarnold; Charles L Bennett; Robert C Soltysik; Michael S Wolf; Rosario M Ferreira; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Stacey Costello; Adil Shakir; Caroline Denwood; Fred B Bryant; Terry Davis Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Douglas B White; Ruth A Engelberg; Marjorie D Wenrich; Bernard Lo; J Randall Curtis Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Kelly L Sloane; Julie J Miller; Amanda Piquet; Brian L Edlow; Eric S Rosenthal; Aneesh B Singhal Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Andrea K Knies; Qiang Zhang; Prerak Juthani; Stephanie Tu; Jolanta Pach; Aida Martinez; Joan K Monin; David Y Hwang Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2020-07-06
Authors: Susanne Muehlschlegel; David Y Hwang; Julie Flahive; Thomas Quinn; Christopher Lee; Jesse Moskowitz; Kelsey Goostrey; Kelsey Jones; Jolanta J Pach; Andrea K Knies; Lori Shutter; Robert Goldberg; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David Y Hwang; Andrea K Knies; David Mampre; Stanislav Kolenikov; Marci Schalk; Heather Hammer; Douglas B White; Robert G Holloway; Kevin N Sheth; Liana Fraenkel Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Anisha Garg; Alexandria L Soto; Andrea K Knies; Stanislav Kolenikov; Marci Schalk; Heather Hammer; Douglas B White; Robert G Holloway; Kevin N Sheth; Liana Fraenkel; David Y Hwang Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 3.532
Authors: Jan Claassen; Yama Akbari; Sheila Alexander; Mary Kay Bader; Kathleen Bell; Thomas P Bleck; Melanie Boly; Jeremy Brown; Sherry H-Y Chou; Michael N Diringer; Brian L Edlow; Brandon Foreman; Joseph T Giacino; Olivia Gosseries; Theresa Green; David M Greer; Daniel F Hanley; Jed A Hartings; Raimund Helbok; J Claude Hemphill; H E Hinson; Karen Hirsch; Theresa Human; Michael L James; Nerissa Ko; Daniel Kondziella; Sarah Livesay; Lori K Madden; Shraddha Mainali; Stephan A Mayer; Victoria McCredie; Molly M McNett; Geert Meyfroidt; Martin M Monti; Susanne Muehlschlegel; Santosh Murthy; Paul Nyquist; DaiWai M Olson; J Javier Provencio; Eric Rosenthal; Gisele Sampaio Silva; Simone Sarasso; Nicholas D Schiff; Tarek Sharshar; Lori Shutter; Robert D Stevens; Paul Vespa; Walter Videtta; Amy Wagner; Wendy Ziai; John Whyte; Elizabeth Zink; Jose I Suarez Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 3.210